Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 120
04/23/2007 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB3 | |
| HB164 | |
| HJR7 | |
| HB213 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 7 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 213 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 164 - OCEAN RANGERS & REPORTING VESSEL LOCATION 1:44:55 PM CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 164, "An Act relating to reporting of vessel location by certain commercial passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of the state, to access to vessels by licensed marine engineers for purposes of monitoring compliance with state and federal requirements, and to the obligations of those engineers while aboard the vessels; and providing for an effective date." [In members' packets were two proposed committee substitutes for HB 164: Version 25-LS0585\V, Kane, 4/20/07; and Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07.] CHAIR RAMRAS, mentioning a potential conflict of interest, turned the gavel over to Vice Chair Dahlstrom. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for an explanation of the differences between Version V and Version N. 1:46:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE KYLE JOHANSEN, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the chair of the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 164, relayed that Version N is the latest version; that Version V was drafted after the 4/20/07 meeting on the bill; and that one of the differences between the two version is that Version N - on page 2, lines 4-5 - uses the term, "wastewater treatment operator" instead of the term, "marine engineer licensed by the United States Coast Guard and", and provides a definition of "wastewater treatment operator" on page 2, lines 23-25: (e) In this section, "wastewater treatment operator" means a Level III wastewater treatment operator certified by the department under the authority of AS 46.30.080. 1:48:37 PM RANDALL RUARO, Staff to Representative Kyle Johansen, Alaska State Legislature, speaking on behalf the House Transportation Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 164, in response to questions, relayed that the term "Level III wastewater treatment operator" - an existing position within the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) - is currently only defined in regulation, not statute. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to a question, indicated that a Level III wastewater treatment operator is specifically trained in wastewater analysis and sampling, and in [maintaining] advanced wastewater treatment plants, whereas a licensed marine engineer - as referenced in both the original bill and Version V - is not. Furthermore, language on page 2, lines 3-8, of Version N stipulates that the wastewater treatment operators will be allowed on board vessels at random times determined by the commissioner while vessels are in port or operating in Alaska waters between two Alaska ports; this new language, he offered, gives the commissioner the discretion to create a program that will satisfy the intent of the voters who approved the recent ballot initiative regarding cruise ship taxation, regulation, and disclosure. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked whether the wastewater treatment operators will be state employees. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed his intent to have that issue addressed in the House Finance Committee. In response to another question, he observed that the DEC's fiscal note will have to be recalculated after the adoption of the CS, though he anticipates it will be lower. CHAIR RAMRAS noted that proposed AS 46.03.476(a) says in part, "The commissioner may require the owner or operator", and surmised that cruise ships wouldn't be prohibited from sailing if not all the Level III wastewater treatment operator positions were filled. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that it is the commissioner who has the discretion to determine when a wastewater treatment operator should go on board a vessel. CHAIR RAMRAS indicated that he wants to ensure that the department's inability to hire enough Level III wastewater treatment operators won't disrupt a cruise ship's schedule. 1:55:20 PM LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), in response to a question, first clarified that the department has estimated that under existing law it will need about 35 Ocean Rangers, and then relayed that Level III wastewater treatment operators have to have 14 years of education, which translates into two years of college and four years of wastewater treatment facility operator experience, at least half of which has to be on a similar type of system. And since many cruise ships operate with an advanced wastewater treatment system, which is not a system that's commonly used at shore-based facilities, there may be some challenges, at least in the first few years, finding staff who have a Level III operator certification for the types of systems that are on cruise ships. She observed, though, that the bill provides leeway to either hire state staff or obtain the services through contract. MS. KENT, in response another question, said that Level II wastewater treatment operators have to have 12 years of education, which translates into a high school diploma and three years of experience operating a system at the next lower level, and at least half of that time must be spent working on a system that's similar to those found on cruise ships. With regard to a question of how the DEC determined that it would need 35 Ocean Rangers, she explained that the department had a contractor review a multitude of options for placing Ocean Rangers on board vessels, and it was the contractor's recommendation that the department could fully staff the vessels while they're operating in Alaskan waters with about 35 Ocean Rangers; this number would satisfy the ballot initiative as currently written with the assumption that a vessel would have just one Ocean Ranger on board, rather than two, working a 12 hour shift. MS. KENT, in response to a question about the fiscal impact of the ballot initiative, relayed that in addition to the salaries paid to those monitoring the cruise ships, there are also costs associated with equipment, training, and traveling to and from vessels. 2:00:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked what the difference is between a wastewater treatment operator and a marine engineer, and whether either would satisfy the requirements of the ballot initiative. MS. KENT said that a Coast Guard licensed marine engineer - someone who is trained in how the systems on the vessel operate, including propulsion systems as well as wastewater systems - is required to have a certain amount of sea time in order to get certification, but doesn't have the kinds of training needed under the initiative as currently written - he/she would have to specifically trained in domestic wastewater sampling, foodservice, solid waste management, drinking water, air opacity, and a wide variety of pollution, health, and safety requirements. Therefore, licensed marine engineers would still have to be trained in those other aspects of environmental and public health rules. A wastewater treatment operator, on the other hand, has been trained in and has experience operating domestic or sewage treatment facilities, but may or may not - likely not - have experience in other kinds of environmental rules, though the way the CS is written, he/she won't have those responsibilities anyway for things like "sanitation" or "safety." REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked which type of person would be best qualified to ensure that wastewater discharge systems are working properly at the proper times. MS. KENT offered her belief that a wastewater treatment operator would be better suited and better trained for the job as long as his/her duties are limited to wastewater discharge on the vessels, as is provided for via Version N. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the legislature will have to further amend AS 46.30 as a result of the passage of HB 164. MS. KENT said she's not yet had a chance to review the statutory authority that sets up the certification system for wastewater [treatment] operators. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested to the sponsor that he research that issue as well. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN, referring to page 2, line 3, of Version N, noted that it says in part, "The commissioner may require the owner or operator of a large commercial passenger vessel to allow". He questioned whether "may" should be changed to "shall" in order to more closely comply with the ballot initiative. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he doesn't see any problem with such a change. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that such a change would take away the commissioner's discretion to train personnel, and characterized it as a huge change. 2:05:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07, as the work draft. There being no objection, Version N was before the committee. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM concurred with Representative Samuels's point. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS opined that changing "may" to "shall" could result in problems related to having sufficiently trained personnel. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN disagreed, said he believes that the commissioner would maintain his/her discretion in that regard, and pointed out that such a change would only mandate that the commissioner must require the owner or operator of a vessel to allow a wastewater treatment operator on board. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised that the issue is whether the owner or operator would be directed to allow or permitted to allow, and doesn't pertain to whether the commissioner still has the discretion to set the times of boarding or establish the duties of wastewater treatment operators. If the "may" is changed to "shall", vessels will be required to "lower the gangplank," he remarked, adding that he doesn't have a problem with that concept. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked what the impact will be on how cruise ships operate if the department is not able to fill the necessary positions. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he is not sure that a lack of sufficient personnel would preclude cruise ships from operating in Alaska's waters, but acknowledged that staffing concerns prompted the removal of language referring to licensed marine engineers. The intent is to give the commissioner the ability to put folks on board when he/she wants to, and so perhaps a further solution to a potential staffing problem would be to remove the words, "Level III" from page 2, line 23, he added. 2:09:51 PM CHAIR RAMRAS asked Representative Johansen whether he would be amenable to a conceptual amendment along the lines of, "in the event that positions cannot be filled on a timely basis by the commissioner of DEC, these large commercial passenger vessels shall be allowed to travel in Alaskan waters." He said he does not want to risk disturbing commerce based on the state's inability to hire sufficient staff. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he intended the language in Version N to give the commissioner the ability to put a person on a vessel, not to automatically have a person board every single ship. Thus, if the commissioner decides that certain vessels - because of a demonstrated good track record - don't need someone on board, the commissioner would have the discretion to adjust the program accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES said she does not think that changing "may" to "shall" will cause a problem because the times of boarding would still be determined by the commissioner, and using the word, "shall" simply means that a particular thing must be implemented. If there is a shortage of staff, she posited, the commissioner can simply chose to have people board vessels fewer times - a shortage of staff won't require cruise ships to be prohibited from entering Alaska waters. "So I would be in favor of changing 'may' to 'shall'," she added. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN reiterated that he has no problem with such a change. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM referred to that suggested change as Amendment 1: on page 2, line 3, changing "may" to "shall". [Although no formal motion was made, the committee treated Amendment 1 as having been adopted.] 2:15:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 2, labeled 25- LS0585\V.2, Kane, 4/23/07, which read: Page 2, line 7: Delete "between two Alaska ports" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he wants to be certain that vessels entering Alaska waters could be monitored before they arrive at their first Alaska port, and that vessels leaving Alaska waters could be monitored after they leave their last Alaska port. Without such a change as proposed by Amendment 2, a vessel operator could simply dump [untreated material] right after coming into Alaska waters or just before leaving Alaska waters. He asked whether eliminating the words, "between two Alaska ports" would address that point. RUTH HAMILTON HESSE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), indicated that it would. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that in order to apply to Version N, Amendment 2 would need to be altered to read: Page 2, line 7-8: Delete "between two Alaska ports" [Although no formal motion was made, the committee treated Amendment 2 as having been amended to that effect.] 2:19:27 PM MS. HAMILTON HESSE, in response to a question, offered her belief that the words, "or operating in Alaska waters" would include all Alaska waters [down] to Dixon Entrance, and that Alaska has a three-mile jurisdictional boundary. She surmised that the words, "between two Alaska ports" allows wastewater treatment operators to board a vessel while it is in port rather than trying to board the vessel while it is underway right at the Dixon Entrance border line. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL surmised, then, that if Amendment 2 were adopted, a wastewater treatment operator could still board a vessel while it is at port, but he/she would not be limited to that situation. He questioned whether, without the adoption of Amendment 2, vessels that choose to enter Alaska waters but not stop at any ports before leaving would be exempt from the provisions of the bill. MS. HAMILTON HESSE said she didn't know, but offered that most cruise ships that come into Alaska waters stop at [at least] two ports. She surmised that the commissioner would still have the discretion to address such a circumstance, though fiscal considerations might have to be made. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated that he simply wants to ensure that while in Alaska waters, vessels aren't simply performing improper discharge operations before they get to their first Alaska port or after they leave their last Alaska port. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to comments, using the example of marine pilots, said that Version N was written so as to make boarding by wastewater treatment operators practical, and noted that the waters of Dixon Entrance - wherein lies the Alaska-Canada maritime border - are quite dangerous, too dangerous for requiring wastewater treatment operators to board vessels while they are underway in those waters. 2:26:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he is more concerned about the jurisdictional aspect of the bill's language, not so much about when a wastewater treatment operator would board a vessel, and relayed that he doesn't want to endanger anyone. Alaska should exert its jurisdiction over "this dumping," he added. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN concurred. He offered his understanding that although it would not be required that someone board a vessel while it's underway in dangerous waters, if the occasion demanded it, under Amendment 2, doing so would remain an option. He added, "I think there's a lot to gain and nothing to lose." REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN posited that the commissioner will still have discretion in that regard; however, although he is not opposed to the amendment, he can't envision the commissioner putting someone on board a vessel while it was out in the middle of the ocean anyway. REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES concurred with Representative Lynn. [Under Amendment 2,] the commissioner would have the discretion to have a wastewater treatment operator on board a vessel while it is entering or exiting Alaska waters, but doing so would not be mandated. She expressed favor with giving the commissioner more discretion in this area in case circumstances called for it. 2:28:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, as amended [text provided previously]. CHAIR RAMRAS objected, and said, "I call the question." A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Lynn, Holmes, and Gruenberg voted in favor of Amendment 2, as amended. Representatives Coghill, Samuels, Dahlstrom, and Ramras voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2, as amended, failed by a vote of 3-4. The committee took an at-ease from 2:29 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS moved to report the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He asked whether the words, "Level III" should remain on page 2, line 23. REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN relayed that he is comfortable with keeping that language in. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection. CHAIR RAMRAS again stated that he has a potential conflict of interest. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected [thus requiring Chair Ramras to vote]. VICE CHAIR DAHLSTROM objected to the motion for the purpose of allowing a roll call vote. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Samuels, Lynn, Coghill, and Ramras voted in favor of reporting the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 164, Version 25-LS0585\N, Kane, 4/23/07, as amended, from committee. Representatives Holmes, Gruenberg, and Dahlstrom voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 164(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|