Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/03/2004 01:50 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 522-SMALL CRUISE SHIP DISCHARGES CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 522, "An Act relating to discharges from small commercial passenger vessels; and providing for an effective date." Number 0545 LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska State Legislature, testified, and noted that HB 522 is sponsored by the House State Affairs Standing Committee. She said HB 522 was brought forward by the small commercial passenger vessels. She explained that in 2001, the legislature passed the Alaska Commercial Vessel Environmental Compliance Program, which was a collaborative effort that was initiated by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Representative Kerttula, and the cruise ship industry itself. It was a program that was designed to minimize discharges into the waters of Alaska. The program itself involved requirements in which technologies would be brought on line and wastewater would be processed on board, in addition, the small vessels were included in this. This included the large 3,000 passenger cruise ship vessels and the smaller vessels, which are defined as passenger vessels between 50 and 249 passengers. MS. SYLVESTER said the idea behind including the small commercial passenger vessels was that technology would be developed for processing wastewater and the technology would filter down to the smaller vessel, which would be able to implement those and then comply with the Act. The idea didn't exactly happen that way. There are technologies but to implement those technologies, the small passenger vessels would be required to undergo major modifications, excess holding, or would have to modify the structure to increase the capacity for storage of the wastewater and other reasons, which is not practical for this group of vessels, she said. Ms. Sylvester said the total amount of discharge from this group of boats is about 3 percent. She said the Alaska Marine Highways and the small passenger vessels combined is the total amount of 6 percent of wastewater in Alaska, and Alaska Marine Highway vessels are exempt from this Act. She said this would only net in the small vessels. MS. SYLVESTER said the group was waiting for a report from the DEC on how the industry has been doing and the report was that the industry is doing very well. The large passenger vessels have done a great job and Alaska is a true star in environmental protection for its waterways, she said. The small vessels are fine at sea but have troubles when in port and stationary. She said the group got together with the department and worked out a plan and decided that if the group can't be perfect and their impact on the environment is very minimal, the best thing to do would be to work towards best management practices and come up with a regulatory scheme in which the department can oversee what's going on and still protect the environment. The bill is the regulatory scheme. She said essentially the department will work with each individual operator and eventually a plan for best management practices would be approved for each vessel for 3 years and "they would touch bases in 3 years." She said the idea is that the department would have latitude to make determinations if there is technology that comes on line, and in its discretion, the department might feel they want to require the small vessels to implement those. She said the 3-year period is technology based. MS. SYLVESTER said BMPs [Best Management Practices] aren't going to really change; the thought is to ensure there is latitude to require the small vessels to comply if technology develops. She said this bill ultimately sunsets, which is structured to essentially grandfather the vessels that are currently operating in the waters of Alaska and to control the vessel's emissions into the water. In 2016, she said this bill will sunset and those small vessels won't be allowed to discharge water in Alaska. She explained that any vessel currently under construction would be required to implement technologies and wouldn't be covered under this plan. Number 0988 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the parameter for a small commercial passenger vessel is from 50 to 249 passengers. MS. SYLVESTER said according to the definitions, a commercial passenger vessel means a vessel that carries passengers for hire except that commercial passenger vessel does not include a vessel that's authorized to carry fewer than 50 passengers. She said the Act doesn't concern itself with vessels that are smaller than 50 passengers, so by default it is between 50 and 249. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Sylvester if she knew how much the compliance fee would be. MS. SYLVESTER said she didn't know. REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Sylvester to find out. Number 1120 DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Facility Construction and Operation, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified. Mr. Easton told the committee when DEC started talking with the industry about the concept of pulling the small vessels out of the full coverage of the 2001 legislation, it was suggested that the department look for four things in a bill, as follows: One, that the bill applied only to existing vessels; all new vessels would be expected to comply with the full force and effect of the 2001 legislation. Second, that new and existing small vessels would comply with the registration sampling, reporting, and inspection requirements. The bill includes more than just limits on discharge quality, it includes these other sort of requirements, and it is thought that the existing small vessels could comply with those. Third, it is thought [DEC] could develop regulations specifying best management practices (BMP). Fourth, [DEC] saw the finite end point in time to this arrangement, and the bill does include a 2016 deadline. In summary, he said this bill includes everything that [DEC] is looking for in a bill, and [DEC] does support it. He noted that a zero fiscal note had been provided. Number 1242 CAPTAIN MICHAEL JONES (ph), Director, Marine Operations, Lindblad Expeditions (LEX), testified. Captain Jones told the committee that he was speaking on behalf of the Alaska Small Cruise Vessel Association, which represents 3 companies that operate 10 small vessels in Alaska. Those companies are Cruise West, Clipper Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company, and Linblad Expeditions. He said LEX consists of charter vessels operating natural history voyages in Alaska since 1982. In 1989, LEX had the opportunity to purchase the vessels it was chartering and as such are operating the vessels Sea Lion and Sea Bird, to date. He said those vessels are sister ships, 152 feet in length, and carry 70 passengers and 24 crewmembers. The ships operate between Sitka and Juneau taking in ports in areas such as Tracy Arm, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and Petersburg. CAPTAIN JONES provided the contact information for Clipper Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company. He said Clipper Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company operates the Yorktown Clipper, a 257 vessel that carries 138 passengers and 42 crewmembers, and the Clipper Odyssey, a 300 vessel that carries 122 passengers and 72 crewmembers. He said Clipper Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company has been operating in Alaska since 1990, starting with the Yorktown Clipper. He said Yorktown Clipper has itineraries similar to that of LEX vessels, and the Clipper Odyssey operates farther out. He noted that the bill packet contained some economic impact information from each of the companies. Captain Jones talked about LEX's economic impact for 2004, the information pertaining to the company's operations in Alaska, and the company's promotions of Alaska through direct mailings and brochures. He said one brochure goes to over half a million households, and another brochure in which Alaska is featured goes to about 890,000 households. He concurred with previously provided testimony. Captain Jones remarked: The regulations as stated and in the term small passenger vessel, we don't have a lot of room to add things. Over the years, we've maintained our marine sanitation devices. In some instances holding out; last year, waiting for this new technology to ideally come down in size to fit within the envelope, the footprint of our vessels, so we could actually take out existing equipment and put in. Unfortunately, the footprint of this new equipment is too large, and the process involves separating liquids and solids, which requires an immense holding capacity to get to another area to pump out or in the case of larger vessels where they actually dry the solids and burn it in there incinerators, which the small vessels just don't have ... that time. Number 1602 CAPTAIN JONES mentioned a letter entitled "Limitations on Modifying Small Commercial Passenger Vessels" from John Waterhouse, P.E., President, Elliott Bay Design Group, Ltd, who helps to articulate the situation of the small cruise ships trying to add new technology into existing vessels. Number 1655 BRYCE BROCKWAY, Vice President, Operations, Cruise West, testified. He noted that his responsibilities include the oversight of all marine, hotel, and technical operations. Mr. Brockway explained that Cruise West operates six small cruise vessels in Alaskan waters, which range in size from 78 passenger vessels to 114 passenger vessels. He mentioned many of the small communities that Cruise West vessels visit throughout Alaska, and he explained that Cruise West was founded by Chuck West (ph) in 1946, in Fairbanks. Mr. Brockway explained that Mr. West started with some tours out into the Arctic and over the years it's transformed to Alaska sightseeing and then to what it is today, Cruise West. He talked about the financial impact information contained in the bill packets that Cruise West had provided, and explained that it is essentially similar to what the other two companies had provided. He pointed out the Cruise West does employee many Alaska residents because it does have an "over the road operation" as well through the Interior, and land offices in Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg. Mr. Brockway said he intended to provide his testimony in person but conflict wouldn't allow it. Number 1821 CHIP THOMA testified. He said he had the opportunity a couple of years ago to sit on the cruise ship initiative as a member. Mr. Thoma said what precipitated it is The Anchorage Daily News and The New York Times uncovered instances of [cruise ships] dumping [in] "doughnut holes." He said [doughnut holes] are large areas 3 miles from shore, and there are two or three of them in Southeast. Mr. Thoma said large ships were targeting these areas, actually dumping waste in them because the ships did not comply, and they figured this was outside the realm of state waters, and they could do so. He said legally they could, and that brought on the actions by then-U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski, which resulted in the cruise ship initiative. The results of that were outstanding. It took a long time to get the ships tested and to identify that in many cases, the maintenance to the systems on board had not been done, he said. Had the maintenance been done, these systems would have worked a lot better than that. He said there were very high levels of discharge. MR. THOMA said this came about because the large cruise ships insisted that state ferries and small ships be included in this program, and this was an attempt to do that. He said both the small ships and the ferries were given a 3-year variance to do it, which he thought was adequate at the time. Since then it's been stated that the new equipment doesn't fit and is not ready to go, but he is not sure if that's the case, and he hadn't seen anything to that affect yet, he said. Mr. Thoma said it won't replace what's in here. He said he did appreciate the work that's been done on HB 522 and thought it was a well-written bill, but to say that the ships can't feasibly comply with the program is questionable. MR. THOMA said the bill packet contains a marine engineer report which states that the systems cannot be added, and cannot be readily changed; the combination of U.S. Coastguard regulations, licensing requirements, and vessel construction practices makes the addition of new treatment equipment and holding tanks technically infeasible adding additional volume and increasing the capacity of wastewater tanks below the main deck. He said he would agree that adding things to small ships is a problem but the possibility of replacing them had not been looked at yet. He said he thought that's what the state should look at and that is why it has a good 3-year program to review these things, so DEC can look at the systems that are available to see if some of them can be replaced. He said the only problem he has with the bill is on page 3, [lines 20-24], which read in part: The department may adopt regulations to implement this subsection but may not require an owner or operator to retrofit a vessel solely for the purpose of waste treatment if the retrofitting requires additional stability testing or relicensing by the United States Coast Guard. Number 2043 MR. THOMA said he believes that this is basically a "poison pill clause" for the bill that negates the ability to move on, actually get some changes, and then retrofit some of these ships. He remarked, "To say that whatever we do is going to require this, we just don't know that." Mr. Thoma said if a marine engineer says it is going to require relicensing or retesting, then [the vessel operator] is "off the hook." He suggested that it should be looked at. Mr. Thoma, directing attention to page 6, said he thought [paragraphs] (1)-(4) were very good. He referred to paragraphs (1) and (2), which read: (1) the vessel is underway and proceeding at a speed of not less than six knots; (2) the vessel is at least one nautical mile from the nearest shore, except in areas designated by the department; MR. THOMA remarked: I went to the web sites for all these companies - Lindblad, Cruise West - all the companies that we're talking about today. Each one of these ships specifically targets wildlife areas. They're going exactly to these doughnut holes; they're going to the Brothers Island, and Frederick Sound. They're going to Point Adolphus, and they're going to Neka Sound off of Sitka to look at Sea Otters. So that's what they're doing is targeting wildlife. MR. THOMA said he thought this [paragraph], except in those areas designated by the department, should be looked at very closely to see if "that can actually expand these discharge areas." He said there really should be a two or three mile buffer around the Brothers Island, which is a huge sea lion rookery that whales coming in from Mexico and Hawaii go to. He said the same [should be done] with Point Adolphus and Neka Sound. Mr. Thoma said he thought there are some special areas that need some further work by DEC, and if that could be done to "bring this bill up to snuff," he was very much in support of it. Number 2115 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the big ships insisted that small ferries be included. MR. THOMA said correct; into the program. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "Who says they can insist on anything?" MR. THOMA said the [cruise ship industry] was a part of the cruise ship initiative, and as far as the consensus process that was worked up, it had a very big part in determining how [the initiative] was going to proceed. He indicated that the cruise ship industry was not going to cooperate unless the state's ferry system and small ships also complied. Mr. Thoma said there was a lot of testimony given that the smaller ships couldn't add the extra tanks. On the bigger ships it was found that the ballast tanks could be converted into holding tanks, and it wasn't necessary to have them all for ballasts. He said the small ships just didn't have that, which is why they were given three years to look at further technology and changes. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern about the words "consensus" and "insisted" almost being used together. MR. THOMA said in a consensus situation, a consensus cannot be reached unless there are some parameters. He said he guessed that the parameters were set up so that small ships and ferries be included, and that's what everybody agreed to. Mr. Thoma said "we" wanted to address all of the problems, especially, the large boat's problems, which have hundreds of passengers on board. Number 2187 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Mr. Thoma what he would suggest to take the "poison out of the pill." MR. THOMA said by taking out this clause, so the onus is not on DEC that every time it comes up with an idea that it is not going to "fly" because it's going to require a new test. He said he thought DEC and the small ships should work cooperatively, which he thought they are. He said he didn't think there is any animosity at all, and there is certainly none on his part. Mr. Thoma noted that he thought [DEC and the small ships] should work more collaboratively together. Number 2227 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked Mr. Thoma for his work. She asked what stability testing and relicensing encompasses. MR. THOMA replied that he didn't know. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why the section was drafted this way to say that the department couldn't require retrofitting if it was going to cause additional stability testing or relicensing. She asked about the kinds of testing and what relicensing encompasses. CAPTAIN JONES referred to Mr. Waterhouse's letter, and he said he thought Mr. Waterhouse did a pretty good job on the section entitled "Regulatory environment", which read [original punctuation provided]: Small Commercial Passenger vessels that operate under the U.S. flag are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard and carry a certificate of inspection showing compliance with all safety requirements. To qualify as a small passenger vessel they must admeasure less than 100 gross tons. Please note that gross tonnage is a measure of internal volume and not weight. Their design and construction are principally regulated under Subchapter K of Chapter 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations which applies to vessels that carry 50 or more passengers in overnight service or more than 150 passengers in day service. If changes are made to a vessel that increase its admeasurements to more than 100 Gross Tons, the vessel is no longer considered a small passenger vessel by the U.S. Coast Guard and is subject to a different "license" or certification. CAPTAIN JONES remarked: When we say additional stability testing and licensing that the Coast Guard ... may require, is sort of what's encapsulated here in this ... letter is the vessel now becomes a different animal, a different ship, [and] is no longer a small passenger vessel. It would then potentially become a large passenger vessel, which would have a regulator under subchapter H, which requires ... a whole lot more equipment, space, [and] personnel on board; the licenses is a certification itself for the vessel and potentially people operating the vessel. ... It just becomes a whole different vessel, so I think that's why, in the bill, that provision was put there, because of the major modification that was discussed earlier [it] certainly ... wasn't the intention when we worked with ADEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] and the industry to draft this bill that we're going to be ... forced to cut the ship in half to stretch it lengthen it, [and] put sponson on it. Those sort of issues that would then kick in. ... Virtually, what it would mean is we'd be out of business. ... We wouldn't be able to spend the money, take the ship out of revenue, lose passenger space, and add all this. It'd be multi-million dollars to do that. ... In the letter, it's pretty unfeasible to think that you would be able to have subchapter K vessel and operate under the existing licensing; it would become something different, which is not our business. Number 2267 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that the requirement to do stability testing means that the vessel has dramatically changed. CAPTAIN JONES replied yes. He said he thought stability modeling and different testing are things that can be done and is something that goes on within the parameters. He remarked: In this bill is this something that's going to drastically turn this ship into something that then kicks in the major modification clause within the regulations, which then again makes it a ... whole different vessel. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if stability testing would only be done for something major rather than for minor changes. CAPTAIN JONES said correct. Under this context there are different stability tests and models that are done all the time. There are stability booklets and letters for the operation of the vessel as it is built. MR. BROCKWAY said basically the vessels are fixed tonnage and if anything is adjusted or taken off and replaced with a new piece of equipment that is the same weight, stability testing is not required. He said the plan is to keep looking at new equipment as Mr. Thoma suggested. As long as the new equipment used to replace the old equipment doesn't change the weight. He said changing weights is a "whole new game" because the weight change has to be overcome by adding more buoyancy. He said Mr. Waterhouse's letter explains what the buoyancy and stability means to the small vessel. The large ship was able to take "tankage" that was used for ballasts and change them into graywater and black water storage. He said in order for [small vessels] to do that, the weight has to be overcome by adding buoyancy, and by doing that, in most cases, vessels will have to add "sponsity" or be lengthened. Mr. Brockway noted that this clause was put in the bill to explain that. Number 2590 CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM noted that the committee was under time constraints due to commitments to hear other bills. She said it is apparent that the committee has some work to do on this bill and that it is the last committee of referral. She asked the sponsor to continue to work on the issues that had been addressed. Number 2626 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how often vessels go into the doughnut holes during a summer and how much waste is dumped. CAPTAIN JONES said he didn't think the doughnut hole issue is and issue for [LEX]. He suggested the issue was brought up because of untreated sewage being dumped in those areas. Furthermore, he said [LEX's] waste is treated and can be discharged anywhere. Captain Jones said [LEX] does not target doughnut holes and "we may very well, trying to get from point A to point B, be in different areas, but an itinerary isn't designed because of a doughnut hole." He reiterated that this is not really an issue for these vessels. Captain Jones noted that 3 percent is the total discharge for this group of vessels and is a factual number in the report. He remarked: To try to look at it in the case of my two vessels ... in the entire Alaska season where I have 14 seven-day trips on one vessels and 16 seven-day trips on another vessel, I'll be carrying probably just over a thousand passengers total for the entire summer, so if you put that against one that's doing a thousand or more at a time. CAPTAIN JONES referred to a graph, and he said saltwater is used to flush the toilets on the ship, which includes seawater and graywater. He said his vessels were using 2,000 gallons of graywater and 3,000 gallons of black water for a 24-hour period of time. CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Captain Jones to provide that information to Representative Weyhrauch's staff, and she said she thought having that information will answer some of these questions, which can be addressed during the next bill hearing. CAPTAIN JONES said the information was already in the report contained in the bill packets. Number 2785 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said 3 percent sounded like a small number, but she was trying to define what was really going on. CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said the bill would be brought up as soon as possible. [HB 522 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|