Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/17/2004 01:07 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 first 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 0056 REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor of HB 522, directed attention to a letter contained in the bill packet entitled, "Limitations on Modifying Small Commercial Passenger Vessels." He noted that the letter addressed concerns the committee had expressed during the previous bill hearing with regard to the stability issue. Representative Weyhrauch asked Co-Chair Dahlstrom if she would like him to read the letter to the committee. CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM suggested it wasn't necessary to read the letter into the record. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH explained that the bill was not introduced until the House State Affairs Standing Committee had something on the record that indicated some basis for having the state affairs committee introduce it in the first place. He indicated that the committee was interested in the position of the state, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the cruise ship industry, and also whether the it made sense from a public policy view and if there was some consensus on the desirability for this piece of legislation. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH suggested the small cruise ship compliance program is misunderstood by some of the public. He noted that a poll done by the Juneau Empire indicated that 77 percent of the people polled were opposed to this kind of thing. Representative Weyhrauch said based on the way the question is posed in the poll, he wondered what people were really responding to. He said the bill does not affect anything related to large cruise ships, exempt them from any [compliance] programs, or affect the taxation issues. Furthermore, he said the bill does not allow small cruise ships to pollute and is not being done [at the industry's request]. He said this is something that has been considered by state regulators and small cruise ship operators in order to provide a policy framework that allow [small cruise ships] to operate, and he suggested small cruise ship operators have shown that they are responsible. He said small cruise ship operators have also shown that they need some relief from the standards that were imposed by earlier legislation in order to keep operating in a way that is still monitored by DEC and meets best management practices (BMPs). Representative Weyhrauch said those are the reasons the bill was introduced REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH noted there would continue to be an education effort. He said this legislation was recommended by DEC and it keeps small cruise vessels in the passenger compliance program, which is what it's all about. He noted that the aforementioned letter was addressed in part to allay Representative Heinze's specific concerns about stability. Number 0538 CO-CHAIR MASEK said it seems the issues brought forward have been dealt with, and she suggested the legislation seems compatible with [DEC's policies]. She indicated she thought protection is provided by the BMPs outlined in the bill and the requirement for DEC to approve the plan for a three-year period in order for small vessels to operate in Alaska's waters. Number 0623 CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report HB 522 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes, and asked for unanimous consent. Number 0635 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected for purpose of discussion. He directed attention to 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. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO noted that this language was previously referred to as the "poison pill" clause. He asked Representative Weyhrauch if he had heard that term used for this language. CO-CHAIR MASEK turned attention to a memorandum dated March 5 to members of the House Resources Standing Committee from Representative Weyhrauch. She said the memorandum deals with the issue of the poison of the bill. Number 0773 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the question from the public was about this same issue and the language in question seems somewhat confusing. Representative Kerttula asked if stability testing is only required when the weight of the vessel has changed. Number 0909 JOHN WATERHOUSE, P.E., President, Elliott Bay Design Group, Ltds., testified. Mr. Waterhouse explained that stability testing is not like water quality testing, it requires that the ship come out of service for a day and involves setting up test equipment, moving weight on the ship, and then taking very careful measurements to determine, from those weight movements, what the center of gravity of the ship is. He said testing is not something that operators will do as a matter of course because it is so disruptive to operations. Mr. Waterhouse said he thought the concern is that if a ship is modified, the U.S. Coast Guard is likely to ask for a stability test to be done because these are small vessels which have applied by name and are typically under fairly stringent stability requirements. He explained that there just isn't a lot of margin in those requirements to accept new equipment or changes in the vessel, which he believes is the concern of the operators. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said if something is changed on a ship that would require the ship to have stability testing, it's because something is being done that affects the stability of the ship, which is the reason the testing is done. She asked if stability testing is done because a problem has already occurred. MR. WATERHOUSE replied correct. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that was the concern from members of the public, and it certainly resolves her issue. Number 1091 REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH offered his understanding that the term "poison pill" came up because a member of the public who was testifying used that phrase. He said it was alleged or stated that [the bill] would have "short circuited" the department's ability to require small passenger vessels to use new wastewater treatment technology. He asked Mr. Waterhouse if he understands the issue in terms of the question that one of the members had raised about this section being called a poison pill. MR. WATERHOUSE said he believes he understands the issue. He said from his standpoint as an engineer, his customers are going to be looking at wastewater treatment because it is an ongoing changing technology. Some of the technologies that are currently in the laboratories being developed may lead to smaller systems that can be retrofitted into a ship that won't impact the stability of the ship. He said knowing his customer base, if that technology is available, they would be very interested in applying it their ships. Furthermore, he said their concern has to do with existing technology that could not be used without major modifications. MR. WATERHOUSE remarked, "They're concerned as operators, but I would see how people on the other side may say that it's a poison pill that they're just trying to avoid doing anything." He said he thought what is being dealt with is technology in progress. Mr. Waterhouse said that over the past five years the cruise industry has put about $50 million into investigating and experimenting with new water treatment technology, so it is very much a work in progress. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said what is being discussed is wastewater treatment. He said [the language in question specifies] that the department may adopt regulations to implement this section, but it exempts those that would be required to do any testing. He said he thought this was sort of contradictory to what the intent of the bill was and that it allowed an "escape clause" that was pretty wide open. REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH said he thought DEC should comment on whether it believes that it is an escape clause that's going to allow that to [happen]. He said he is curious too, and it should be on the record. Number 1275 DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Facility Construction and Operation, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified. He said his understanding of the [language in question] is that DEC can't require an owner or operator to retrofit a vessel solely for the purpose of waste treatment if it requires additional stability testing. Mr. Easton said the types of things that require additional stability testing would primarily be for adding tankage or making substantial changes to the vessel. He said DEC was going to try to avoid that in working with the small cruise ship companies, and DEC believes it can develop a set of regulations that protect water quality and comply with water quality standards without requiring the addition of major tankage that ultimately would require that the vessels be stability tested. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he thought it was good to get it on the record, but it still seems contradictory to him. He commented that it "tickles" some of his neurons and it says there's something "goofy" here. He remarked, "In other words, as long as you have an obligation that says you now have to have a test, why you're excused." Number 1432 REPRESENTATIVE WEYHRAUCH asked Mr. Waterhouse if there is a correlation between testing and the U.S. Coast Guard certificate of inspection licensing process. MR. WATERHOUSE said he thought this may partly go back to the misunderstanding of the testing. If it can be demonstrated to the U.S. Coast Guard by calculations of weights on and weights off of stability then the vessel does not need to be tested, and the U.S. Coast Guard will accept that. He said if a wastewater system is being changed out by another wastewater system that weighs the same amount and it can be demonstrated by calculations, the U.S. Coast Guard will not require a stability test. The concern comes in when a system is being replaced by a system that will require additional tankage and cause the U.S. Coast Guard to mandate a stability test. Part of the problem is that as a result of that stability test, if the vessel fails, the work has already been done to the vessel. If it is suddenly discovered that it no longer meets stability requirements, then the situation is that the money has been spent on equipment, the U.S. Coast Guard is saying the boat cannot be sailed because of the equipment has been installed. MR. WATERHOUSE said it is not testing for knowledge or for the ability to do it, it is a reflection of the fact that as boats grow older they tend to gain weight. He explained that every little bit of weight on these kinds of vessels has to be watched carefully because there are stringent safety and stability requirements, and the U.S. Coast Guard is pretty rigorous about enforcing those. CO-CHAIR MASEK said the bill specifies that best management practices will include such things as onboard treatment of all wastewater to U.S. Coast Guard standards and whenever possible require that all vessel discharge be made at least one mile offshore traveling at six knots. She said the bill also says the DEC assessment report concluded when small and large vessel discharge underway they are able to meet all Alaska water quality standards. She turned attention to page 53 of the report that DEC came out with on the assessment of cruise ship and ferry wastewater assessment impacts in Alaska. She said schedules are going to be adjusted to minimize stationary discharges; ships will avoid doing laundry while stationary, and will work with manufacturers to develop new technology capable of treating stationary discharges to higher levels on smaller vessels. CO-CHAIR MASEK noted that ships will utilize holding tanks to the maximum extent to avoid stationary discharges, continue to pay coastal protection fees to DEC, and continue to test, monitor, and report wastewater discharges to DEC. Co-Chair Masek said she thought [DEC] had come a long way in working with this and is on board with [the bill]. She remarked, "I think we've done all we can." She noted that Representative Kerttula had worked hard with another issue that this came out of. She said she thought it was a very good compromise and is encouraged to see the committee making some headway. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO commented that if the requirements are already satisfied, then no action is needed. He asked if it is satisfactory to simply discharge at a given rate of speed a mile offshore, should the bill go beyond that since that satisfies the requirements. The issue of removing equipment and replacing it with equipment of the same weight may satisfy the weight requirement, but probably not the balance requirement unless it is placed in the same location, he added. Representative Gatto told the members that the bill is not as clean as he would like it to be. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO emphasized that he would like to see small ships prosper and is a strong supporter. When legislation affects the smaller ships, he said he would like it to be clear that the bill makes it easy for them to adopt the regulations without causing some objections from the community and the U.S. Coast Guard at some later date. Representative Gatto stated that he does not believe that would occur with this bill, but in reading the bill he thought it could use more work. MR. EASTON said he can't address the question about why a bill is needed if the vessels are complying underway. He said the problem arises when the vessels are not underway. Number 1841 REPRESENTATIVE GATTO withdrew his objection. CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked if there was further objection. Hearing none, HB 522 was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|