Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/25/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 80-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
1:01:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to the regulation of
wastewater discharge from commercial passenger vessels in state
waters; and providing for an effective date."
1:02:41 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), began with a historical background,
explaining that cruise ship discharges have been under scrutiny
since 1999 when concerns were expressed about the environmental
impacts of cruise ship discharges. The state aggressively
looked at that and by 2004 the larger cruise ships operating in
Alaska were required to have advanced wastewater treatment
systems, the best technology at that time. This is a class of
systems made by different manufacturers, so each system may
differ in performance as to individual pollutants. The Alaska
Cruise Ship Initiative ("2006 Initiative"), passed by Alaska
voters in 2006, imposed certain taxes on cruise ships and
imposed the requirement that large cruise ships operating in
state waters have a state permit for discharges within 3 miles
of shore. Until that time there had been no state or federal
requirement for a permit. The 2006 Initiative also required
that any discharges under the permit meet state water quality
standards at the point of discharge.
1:06:03 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG pointed out that water quality standards are
designed to protect designated uses and are required of every
state under the federal Clean Water Act. Water bodies are
designated for particular uses in the state, such as drinking
water, recreation, and aquatic life. Under statutory authority,
DEC sets the water quality standards for the state, which is
done through the department's regulatory process. Under federal
law, DEC must review its regulatory standards every three years.
When DEC decides to issue a new standard, it is noticed as a
change in regulation, goes through public review and comment,
and finalized. Then, under federal requirement, the [proposed]
regulation must go to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for approval. The EPA conducts consultations for the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Reauthorization Act, as well as essential fish
habitat and tribal consultations. A regulation becomes a state
water quality standard only after EPA approves it. Since this
process takes 4 to 10 years, DEC is pretty sure when it proposes
a water quality standard that the number is right.
1:07:37 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that a water quality standard is
used to determine how much of a pollutant can go into a water.
Since use of that water is protected, the water quality standard
says this is how much of a pollutant that a water body can take
before that use is affected adversely. Therefore DEC looks at
each permit application to determine how much pollutant can be
allowed that will not exceed the water quality criteria for that
water body. At the point of discharge means the point on the
ship at which the effluent leaves the ship before entering the
water. If water quality criteria are applied at the point of
discharge it means the water being discharged must be drinkable,
a person could swim in it, and fish and microorganisms could
live and thrive in it. He said DEC's experience with the cruise
ship wastewater systems coming after 2006 is that they are doing
relatively well in meeting the water quality criteria for all
pollutants except four: ammonia, and dissolved copper, nickel,
and zinc. These systems are doing better in meeting water
quality criteria than shore-based public wastewater treatment
systems along the coast, but they are not consistently meeting
water quality criteria in the pipe.
1:09:22 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that House Bill 134, [signed into
law] in 2009, did not do away with the permit requirement, but
did allow DEC - on a temporary basis - to issue wastewater
discharge permits to the large cruise ships that relieved them
from at the point of discharge as long as they were using the
waste treatment most technologically effective and economically
feasible. House Bill 134 also established the Cruise Ship
Wastewater Science Advisory Panel ("Science Advisory Panel") to
look at whether the wastewater treatment systems, as a class,
are still the best on the market. He said the 11-member panel,
comprised of experts, met in a series of 15 meetings open to the
public. Although not required to do so, the panel issued a
preliminary report ["Cruise Ship Wastewater Science Advisory
Panel Preliminary Report," November 1, 2012] to DEC, which DEC
added as an addendum to its own preliminary report ["Department
of Environmental Conservation Preliminary Report on Cruise Ship
Wastewater," January 1, 2013] in which DEC concurred with the
findings of the panel. The department's report was delivered to
the legislature earlier this month.
1:11:02 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said DEC concurs with the following key
findings in the Science Advisory Panel's report: 1) the
advanced wastewater treatment systems incorporated on the ships
in 2004 are the best available technology; 2) the data indicates
these large ships were largely able to meet water quality
criteria at the point of discharge, except for ammonia and the
three dissolved metals; and 3) nothing will become available in
the near future that could be incorporated onto large cruise
ships that would allow them to meet the at-the-point-of-
discharge requirement for all parameters. The third finding is
important because DEC's authority to allow relief from that
standard - meaning to allow mixing zones - sunsets at the end of
calendar year 2015. The current 2012 permit under which ships
are discharging expires in early April [2013]. The department
will issue a new permit in time for the late April arrival of
the first cruise ship that needs a permit to discharge, but that
permit would be under the existing law, the law that they are
struggling to meet now. If the legislature changes the law, DEC
would have to adapt to that and try to issue a permit quickly
before the start of the discharge season or work out some kind
of transition.
1:13:01 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG next reviewed the bill, stating that SB 29
[the companion bill to HB 80] would remove the requirement that
water quality criteria be met at end of pipe, thereby treating
cruise ships like other wastewater dischargers. To get relief
from the end-of-pipe requirement, a cruise ship would need a
mixing zone and to get a mixing zone a ship would have to have
an advanced wastewater treatment system. A ship would therefore
not get a mixing zone unless it had onboard the best system
available. Secondly, the ship would have to meet the extensive
criteria of DEC's mixing zone regulations, two examples being
the ship would have to show that salmon passing through that
area would not be impacted and that there would not be bio-
accumulation in sediments or elsewhere. He pointed out that
these criteria apply not to just cruise ships, but to any
discharger in the state wanting a mixing zone.
1:14:35 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that SB 29/HB 80 would also allow
for a transition period so that the permit issued by DEC in 2010
would continue until 2015, rather than expiring in early April
[2013], unless DEC replaced it with a new permit under the new
law. That transition would allow DEC to not have to withdraw a
permit and issue a new permit, which would result in people
having to scramble over the next four months and not know what
they must comply with during the interim period.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG specified that DEC has been putting small
cruise ships, defined as having fewer than 250 passenger berths,
under a "best management plan" whereby their waste and discharge
are managed under best practices rather than a permit with set
limits. If HB 80 does not pass, then in 2015 these small cruise
ships would also be required to meet that at-the-point-of-
discharge requirement. The Science Advisory Panel did not even
look at that, he advised, because if the large cruise ships
cannot make it the smaller ones will find it even more difficult
due to their limited space, power needs, holding times, and
tankage. The bill would also provide a transition time for the
small cruise ships, allowing DEC to extend the best management
plan coverage and after the 2015 sunset DEC could continue to
manage them under these plans.
1:16:23 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG maintained that HB 80 would not change water
quality standards, so a pollutant that is a problem for cruise
ships, such as copper, is likely to be a problem for other
dischargers as well. All these issues are looked at under water
quality standards and DEC must follow federal requirements to
change those. The Science Advisory Panel did not look at water
quality criteria because that was not its job, expertise, or
mission. He further maintained that the bill would not change
or relax the state's mixing zone requirements.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the bill would sunset the Science
Advisory Panel, which was the third step along the way: a panel
was convened for the changes in early 2000, DEC held a
technology conference in Juneau with invited experts and vendors
from around the world to look at different technologies, and the
current panel. All three have agreed that these are the best
systems available in the world. Since nothing else is on the
horizon, the question is why have people come from around the
world to tell the same information over the next three years,
particularly when DEC already has the authority and duty to
continue to look at emerging technology for cruise ships and
other dischargers. The department can continue holding
technology conferences and can target them to look at specific
things rather than a broad spectrum like the Science Advisory
Panel has. If additional resources are needed, DEC can come
back to the legislature and ask for a capital increment, which
it has done in the past.
1:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK requested clarification on whether the 4 to
10 year process for water quality standards is the timeline for
the state to meet federal requirements for state regulations or
for the cruise industry to get a permit.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that under its primacy from EPA, DEC
has the authority to issue permits, which is something the state
applied for and received from EPA. However, water quality
standards are a totally different subject. The department takes
the standards and puts them in permits, but the authority to do
water quality standards arises directly under the [federal]
Clean Water Act. Congress gave this authority to each state and
the Alaska legislature then specifically gave it to DEC. So,
the requirements that DEC follows for water quality standards
are the same for every state, regardless of whether for cruise
ships or anyone else. When DEC sets those standards they are
statewide standards and they are set by the federal process that
all states follow. In further response, Commissioner Hartig
related that 4 to 10 years is his experience for getting water
quality criteria through - from the time DEC opens the state
regulatory process by proposing the change in the standard to
the public until EPA completes its reviews and consultations.
For example, if DEC wanted to change the standard for copper it
would have to go through this long and rigorous mandatory
process.
1:21:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that state critical habitat areas
are established under state statute in order to protect and
preserve habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of
fish and wildlife and to restrict all other uses not compatible
with that primary purpose. He understood from his talks with
the cruise ship industry that the ships do not discharge in
those areas. He inquired whether DEC would have a problem with
making sure the bill contains a restriction so that discharges
could not occur in areas that are "above the water quality
standards of the state." He qualified that these state areas
are distinct from federally designated habitat areas for beluga
whales and polar bears.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that DEC currently has the
statutory authority specifically as to cruise ships - but it
would apply to any dischargers generally - to restrict the when,
where, and how that they discharge. Some of the restrictions
the cruise ship companies are acknowledging to Representative
Seaton are in the DEC permit and DEC could put in more.
Qualifying that he is not diminishing the legislative body in
any way, he said that the when, where, and how can be done by
DEC at the permitting level. If things change and there is an
area needing protection that cannot go through the whole process
of being formally designated as a protected area, DEC could deal
with it in the permit. When proposing a permit, DEC puts out a
draft permit identifying the when, where, and how for discharge
and specifies which areas; the Alaska Department of Fish & Game,
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the public can come
forward to say what areas should be off limit and DEC has the
authority to include them in the permit. He said DEC's current
general permit includes areas where discharge cannot occur.
Regardless, he continued, the cruise ships would have to meet
the state's water quality criteria at the edge of any mixing
zone, and the when and how of that mixing zone would be defined.
For example, DEC could require that a ship be underway so there
would be the 50,000:1 instantaneous dilution and therefore no
impact. Also, so there would be no worry about the total
quantity, DEC could restrict how many vessels and when.
1:24:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood that if HB 80 does not pass, the small
vessels currently exempted from the more stringent wastewater
treatment standards would then be required to install an
advanced wastewater treatment system.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that the ability of small vessels
to operate under a DEC best management plan would sunset and, if
a small vessel wanted to discharge in Alaska water it would have
to meet DEC's water quality criteria at the end of pipe.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE surmised this would be economically impossible.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that a small vessel would have to
choose not to discharge in Alaska waters, and he did not know if
the smaller vessels would have the holding capacity to continue
to operate.
1:25:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether Alaska ferries and
fishing vessels that carry fewer than 250 people would then have
to comply with that.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG understood that a couple, not all, Alaska
ferries are under a DEC best management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether fish processors and/or
fishing boats would fall into that.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that commercial passenger vessels
carrying people for hire fall under this law, versus fishing
vessels. In further response, he confirmed that Alaska ferries,
fishing vessels, and other boats that do not carry people for
hire also have discharge.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the discharge from these
vessels is treated in any way.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that U.S. Coast Guard federal rules
require marine safety devices, which have a lesser effluent
quality than the advanced wastewater treatment systems onboard
the large cruise ships. He was unsure, however, which vessels
are required to have this device.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether mixing zones would be
required for such vessels.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied no permits or mixing zones are
required. The EPA is looking at getting some of these vessels
under permits; some are under best management practices as
opposed to having effluent limitations like for cruise ships.
1:27:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER related that on the radio this morning the bill
was characterized as reducing Alaska's wastewater discharge
standards and gutting the water quality standards. He asked
what would be different about discharge levels or toxicity in
the next three years that has been different from the last three
years should this bill pass.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG reiterated that the water quality criteria
are not changing because this bill cannot change the state water
quality criteria. He said he did not know what would happen if
the legislature were to change the copper standard outside the
federal mandated process. According to "ninth circuit law,"
until EPA puts a stamp of approval on it DEC cannot put it in
federal permits. The department might go to put it in a state-
issued permit that does not invoke any federal law, but that
would create can an "interesting situation."
1:28:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR noted that of concern to her - but not
talked about - is permittees allowed to have continuous
discharges versus permittees required to be underway with the
idea that the dilution factor is happening more quickly. She
suggested that since there is no currently known technology that
would meet the stronger standard, one opportunity might be to
extend the compliance period for meeting the stronger standard
rather than changing the law.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that he did not know what that
extension period would need to be, but make it 100 years and he
would be comfortable. These big ships are built once and have a
relatively long useful life, so there would be a question with
ship manufacturers of whether to build a ship now or to wait
because it is not known what the standard is going to be. If
Alaska was up in the air in this regard it would create a lot of
uncertainty for the people who deploy the ships. He said there
are many ways in which Alaska could drive technology. For
example, if Alaska thought reverse osmosis would work it could
put out a prize or hire the University of Alaska to put its
engineers at work; the Science Advisory Panel will not do that
because it is comprised of volunteers and this would require
lots of testing. Before these systems go on ships it must be
known that they are going to work. There are many
considerations with these systems, including weight and balance,
amount of storage capacity, and amount of energy. A waste
treatment system does not cause the waste to disappear, it goes
somewhere else and the question is how to manage that. What new
waste is created and what should be done with that new waste
stream? Because of these considerations, new technology does
not happen quickly and trying to make it go quickly can cause
disruptions, as has been seen over the past few years.
1:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, noting that sport charter fishing
boats carry passengers, asked whether this type of boat would
now have to comply if the change is not made.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
answered that they would not be required to comply with those
requirements; the [proposed] legislation and current law apply
to commercial passenger vessels that carry passengers for hire.
Small vessels are defined as commercial passenger vessels with
249 or fewer lower berths.
1:32:47 PM
MS. KENT, addressing Co-Chair Saddler's earlier question about
Alaska ferries, specified that five of the Alaska Marine Highway
ferries are considered small commercial passenger vessels and
are currently operating under best management plans. None of
the ferry system vessels meet the definition of being a large
commercial passenger vessel.
1:33:06 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER requested amplification as to the Science
Advisory Panel's process, composition, and operating parameters.
MS. KENT replied that the Science Advisory Panel was convened
under House Bill 134 and was comprised of members from other
Alaska communities, other countries, and the Lower 48. Based on
statutory requirements, the 11-member panel included people with
expertise in wastewater plant design and operation, wastewater
engineering and science, ship engineering design and
construction, environmental science, shipping economy,
fisheries, and environmental policy. The panel met over a
period of two years and scoured the planet to see what was
currently available for wastewater treatment in other countries,
other ships, and other industries that might be applicable to
the cruise ships. The panel did a thorough job and conveyed its
information and recommendations in a formal report, even though
not required to do so, and that is the report that DEC appended
to its analysis. She said the panel was very helpful to DEC and
every meeting included opportunity for public comment.
1:35:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether other countries have wastewater
treatment requirements for cruise ships similar to Alaska's.
MS. KENT responded that at the time of the 2006 Initiative and
its very strict requirements for meeting the water quality
standards at the point of discharge, DEC felt that Alaska had
the strictest requirements in the world. While she has not
looked recently to see if other jurisdictions have done
something similar or how their standards compare, she said she
thinks the laws in Alaska drove the vessels 10 years or so to
install advanced treatment systems. While these systems are not
required around the world, the good news is that when the cruise
ships go to other countries they still operate those systems.
1:36:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether best management practices is
a list of practices that the ships must do or whether the ships
list the practices they follow and DEC approves those.
MS. KENT understood that each vessel must submit a plan for
DEC's review and approval on what that vessel is doing to reduce
its waste to make sure it is as clean as possible and the most
safe locations for making discharges.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), confirmed that Ms. Kent's
understanding is correct.
MS. KENT added that the best management practices are extensive
and include everything from the kind of products being used
onboard that might affect the vessel's wastewater, where the
vessel is moored, and when the vessel allows its passengers to
shower.
1:37:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that the best management
practices are submitted individually by the vessels. He
inquired whether DEC has denied any of these plans.
MS. KENT answered that early on DEC was disappointed in some of
the plans it received. Rather than just disapproving them, DEC
worked with the vessel owners and operators to see what they
could do to beef up their plans and also shared ideas that came
in on the other vessel plans. This allowed DEC to bring all the
vessels up to a level of doing the best that they absolutely can
when discharging in Alaska waters.
1:38:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether best available technology is
something the state must convene a science panel and whether DEC
is allowed to or barred from applying that standard.
MS. KENT replied that DEC already has statutory authority to do
things like convening technology workshops, and did so long
before House Bill 134 was passed. She noted that DEC has an
opportunity and an obligation with each permit renewal, which
generally, except for the cruise ships right now, are on a 5-
year cycle, to look at technology and to ensure that not just
cruise ships but also the state's other wastewater dischargers
are using the best technology that they can.
1:39:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how it is known what is being
discharged from the ships.
MS. KENT responded that for the larger commercial passenger
vessels under permits, the requirements include self-monitoring,
DEC inspecting those vessels, and DEC sometimes taking its own
independent samples to verify that the self-monitoring data is
really representative of what is coming off of the vessels. She
deferred to Ms. Hale regarding the level of oversight for the
smaller vessels, but said she did not believe that they are
required to do any monitoring.
1:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired about what prompts DEC to do its
own testing and whether that is random or done periodically.
MS. KENT answered it is general so she would call it random.
She said DEC looks at vessels when they are in port because that
is when it is easiest for the department to get to them.
However, the department has ocean rangers onboard the vessels
the whole time observing what the onboard operations are.
1:41:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that the ocean ranger program was
created by the 2006 Initiative and is paid for by the cruise
ships themselves.
MS. KENT replied that the ocean rangers are onboard all the
large commercial passenger vessels and are paid by a contractor
hired by DEC. The fund source is a fee on the cruise ships that
comes through DEC.
1:41:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER requested definitions of technically feasible
and economically practical.
MS. KENT deferred to Ms. Hale, saying she is the person who has
been steeped in conversations with the Science Advisory Panel
over those very terms.
1:42:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what the potential penalties are for a
cruise ship that violates these wastewater treatment standards.
MS. KENT deferred to attorney general Ruth Hamilton Heese, but
noted there are both civil and criminal penalties for violations
of permits and of the state's water quality standards.
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of
Law (DOL), confirmed there are penalties applicable to discharge
standards. While she did not have all of the particulars at the
ready, she said AS 46.03.760 provides per events violations and
per day penalties that are paid for a violation, ranging from
$500 per day and not more than $100,000 per violation per day.
She added that there are also administrative, civil, and
criminal penalties that go beyond just the violation of effluent
standards and include any monitoring or reporting violations.
In further response, Ms. Heese clarified that the civil penalty
through the court would not be less than $500 nor more than
$100,000 for the initial violation and then not more than $5,000
for each day after that first violation.
1:45:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, regarding DEC's ability to apply
restrictions in state critical habitat areas, inquired whether
there are any instances in which DEC has for a commercial
passenger vessel issued a permit of discharge at greater than
state standard at the end of pipe for those areas identified as
critical for the perpetuation of fish and wildlife.
MS. KENT responded that, under the current law, she does not
believe there are any large commercial passenger vessels
discharging in those types of areas. She added that the current
permit has limitations right now for Glacier Bay National Park
and Preserve and for the Skagway area. She offered to get back
to the committee with more detail.
1:47:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed his concern about the Kachemak
Bay Critical Habitat Area. He related that the cruise ships he
has talked to have said they do not and would not discharge
there. However, he is concerned about creating a system with a
hurdle that would require people from all over the state to
write in comments asking DEC to restrict discharge in each
specific critical habitat area if a vessel were to ask for that.
Unless it is heard from the industry that it needs the ability
to discharge in such areas, he would like to request DEC to
think about whether this would be something that it might want
to permit at some time.
1:49:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there are discharge permits
of any kind in Kachemak Bay.
MS. KENT answered that almost all of the coastal communities
have a marine discharge associated with their wastewater
treatment facility and all of those in that area of the state
would have a mixing zone associated with it. In further
response, she confirmed that this would still be the case even
if there was a designated critical habitat area. She reminded
members that the water quality standards are designed to protect
anywhere in the state, whether it is a designated critical
habitat or not. Any time the water quality standards are being
met, aquatic life should be protected. A mixing zone is an
exception to those standards and those mixing zones are as small
as DEC can allow them based on the treatment capabilities of the
facility. One of the many reasons for a five-year look back at
those permits and having to renew them is that every five years
the public gets an opportunity to comment again on that permit
for a shore-based facility, for instance, and on that mixing
zone and whether it still makes sense to have it in that
location for that community.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that dirty water is dirty water
no matter who is making it, and fairness is fairness. He
therefore did not want a standard that applied to one and not
another. He said he was all for setting a standard for clean
water, but everyone needs to be playing on the same field.
1:50:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether the costs have been assessed for
bringing municipal wastewater systems or fishing vessel systems
up to the same level as the cruise ships.
MS. KENT replied she is unaware of a price estimate that could
be pointed to for bringing all community wastewater systems in
Alaska to point of discharge water quality standards, but she
could say that most people in the room could not afford to flush
their toilets if the community systems had to meet that level of
treatment. She said there is science and there is policy, and
the policy call is what allows DEC to have those mixing zones
and have that balance between protecting the water quality and
ensuring that everyone can survive as a society. She pointed
out that under HB 80, DEC's mixing zone requirements would not
go away. Just because the bill would make some changes and may
allow cruise ships to have a mixing zone, that does not mean
they automatically get one. The ships would have to demonstrate
that they can meet the list of 19 or 20 criteria in order for
DEC to issue a permit that would allow a mixing zone. The same
criteria that apply to the shore-based facilities, seafood
processors, the oil industry, the mining companies, would also
apply.
1:52:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said one issue is that these are floating
cities all over the place. He asked how, when issuing a permit
for mixing zones for these ships, would DEC consider the mixing
zones for when and where a ship discharges.
MS. KENT responded that the current permit under which the large
commercial passenger vessels are operating is very specific as
to whether they are discharging under way or discharging when in
port. If a vessel seeks authorization to discharge while in
port, its effluent standards are stricter. She said DEC has
looked at the cumulative impacts of multiple vessels in an area.
When discharging while underway - six knots or more - the
dilution of the effluent is so rapid that it meets the water
quality standards within seconds of coming out of the pipe.
1:53:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether DEC assumes that the cruise
ships are not all underway at the same spot and dumping or
whether DEC regulates and controls this.
MS. KENT answered that DEC is not regulating the path that the
cruise vessels follow and how many vessels can travel through an
area in a specific time. However, the dilution of a discharge
from a moving vessel meets the water quality standards before
that water gets to the stern of the ship, so the next ship
coming through is in clean water.
1:54:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised that DEC looks at the dilution and
how fast a ship is going, but does not consider the where, when,
and what path.
MS. KENT replied that under the 2006 Initiative, the cruise
vessels are required to report their location continuously,
which DEC has read to mean every hour. Therefore the department
can see the track of every large cruise vessel and DEC does look
at those.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether it would also be helpful for
DEC to know when a cruise ship is discharging and how much.
MS. KENT responded that the cruise ships already are required to
tell DEC when they start and stop discharge.
1:55:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood that for copper DEC is currently
using the EPA standard.
MS. KENT answered that copper is considered a toxic and offered
her belief that DEC has just adopted the EPA's values.
1:56:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she has been hearing concern that
salmon are much more sensitive to copper and that DEC should
therefore have a more restrictive standard than that of the EPA.
She asked whether DEC is considering that. She offered her
understanding that using plastic pipes instead of copper pipes
might influence the copper levels in the discharge and asked
whether DEC is working with the industry to introduce simple
modifications like that.
MS. KENT replied that when DEC first started working with the
large commercial passenger vessels, it had them look at all of
the systems onboard the vessels - some vessels have copper pipe,
some do not, and some replaced their copper pipes. In also
looking at the products used onboard, some vessels changed out
certain products. Regarding water quality standards, she said
EPA sets the standards through a set of rigorous tests that
include six different levels of organisms and looks at acute
toxicity, chronic toxicity, and lethality. Because these
standards are applied across the country EPA must be fairly
conservative in setting the numbers. Recent EPA studies have
looked at copper and potential behavioral impacts on fish and
DEC has looked at those. Copper is a big issue, so it is always
a topic when DEC reviews its water quality standards every three
years; plus DEC is always checking for new science. At the 2012
Alaska Forum on the Environment, DEC held a session where
experts presented the known science about copper. At this
point, DEC does not feel it has sufficient data that would allow
it to make a legally defensible change to the copper criteria.
1:58:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired about the baseline levels of copper
from natural sources versus copper as a wastewater product.
MS. KENT said DEC would look up that information for the
committee.
1:59:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that page 84 of the [Science
Advisory Panel's preliminary] report states that the Mendenhall
River discharges 23 times more copper per year than all the
cruise ships combined.
MS. KENT responded that the Science Advisory Panel looked at a
mass loading perspective for informational purposes. However,
from DEC's perspective, what really matters is the concentration
in the water where the fish or other critters might be exposed
to it, as opposed to how many pounds went into a water body
because a pound in a wheelbarrow is very different than a pound
in a swimming pool. She offered her belief that the Science
Advisory Panel wanted to put some perspective on just how much
copper is going into the marine environment in Southeast Alaska
from cruise ships versus a single natural source.
2:00:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether cruise ships have discharged
into municipal treatment plants and whether this has been talked
about further by the Science Advisory Panel. He recalled it
being said in the past that Juneau would be able handle the
discharges.
MS. KENT confirmed this was discussed by the panel. She offered
her belief that one or two vessels have discharged into the
Juneau facility. She added that it is very difficult for a
shore-based facility to handle wide fluctuations in its flow and
wide fluctuations in the quality of the wastewater that is
coming into the facility. So, if cruise ships with advanced
wastewater treatment systems are treating their water onboard
first and then putting it into a municipal system, that system
would be flooded with very clean water, which could kill "the
bugs" because there is not a food source for the biological
treatment process. If cruise ships flooded a municipal system
with untreated water, the municipal system may be overwhelmed in
that way. She explained that municipal systems are not "plug
and play"; the operators must watch the inflow, the quality of
that flow, and constantly tweak the treatment system, so cruise
ship discharge would be very difficult for them. Most important
is that the effluent limits for the shore-based facilities are
less stringent than they currently are for the cruise ships, so
the cruise ships are discharging cleaner water than are the
shore-based facilities.
2:02:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that one facility is in motion and
one is stationary and people have confidence in that control of
the stationary facility. He requested clarification on "one or
two ships."
MS. KENT offered her belief that one or two ships a year might
occasionally discharge into the Juneau facility.
2:03:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony.
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), testified that his organization is
interested in growing Alaska's economy through responsible
resource development. Of priority to RDC is a strong permitting
process that is predictable, timely, efficient, and based on
sound science and economic feasibility. He said RDC is
impressed with the work of the Science Advisory Panel and the
guidance of this group by DEC's commissioner and deputy
commissioner. He understood the panel has provided critical
information that can help shape a more rational wastewater
discharge for Alaska's cruise industry. It is clear from the
panel's findings that meeting the current water quality
standards at the point of discharge from cruise ships is not
feasible and unnecessary to protect public health and aquatic
species. He related RDC's belief that HB 80 would establish a
policy that is based on sound science and economic feasibility.
Because many RDC members are small businesses and communities
that rely on the business activity of the cruise industry, RDC
supports quick passage of HB 80.
2:06:20 PM
DAVID WETZEL, President, Admiralty Environmental, testified that
his company is the independent contractor managing the sampling,
monitoring, and testing of both the large and small cruise ships
in Alaska. He has been doing this since 1999 and has reviewed
and reported the majority of the data produced. He offered his
support of HB 80, saying it would be a sound and practical
solution that would achieve environmentally responsible
monitoring of cruise ships. Based on his experience, these
treatment systems really are the best systems available; even
the military is looking at adding them to their ships. Relating
that his company monitors many of the local municipal treatment
systems in Southeast Alaska, he said he is convinced that the
systems on the ships are far superior to those on land. He
added that there is a remarkable consistency between the
different advanced wastewater treatment systems and the results
they produce, the consistency between the different ships
employing the same system, and the consistency between the
results for the same ship year to year. Under the current
permit, the majority of the sampling is being performed underway
where there is a significant amount of dissipation that occurs
immediately.
2:08:15 PM
MR. WETZEL stated that the data his company is seeing supports
the Science Advisory Panel's findings. The levels of these
metals and ammonia are low to start with and there is quite a
bit of removal between the influent onto the ships and the
effluent coming out. From his company's perspective, it seems
sensible to apply the same strategy for effluent limitations to
the cruise ships as is applied to land-based treatment.
MR. WETZEL said the matter of scale is another point to
consider, with the volume discharged by cruise ships being
significantly smaller than that of [land-based] wastewater
treatment plants. He concurred with Ms. Kent's portrayal of the
difficulty in putting cruise ship discharge through a municipal
plant. His experience with the cruise ship industry's monitors
is that they are all very committed to operating these advanced
wastewater treatment systems in an optimal manner and that they
are interested in meeting the regulations before them. It is
important to encourage these vessels to use these advanced
wastewater treatment systems in the best way possible, because
the alternative would encourage ships to discharge outside of
regulated areas without any treatment, which would result in a
greater environmental impact. In his opinion the current state
of treatment is highly effective, and he therefore urged the
passage of HB 80.
2:10:30 PM
BOB JANES, Owner, Gastineau Guiding Company, testified that
because he did not have a full grasp of this situation he had
therefore wondered whether he should come testify. He said he
makes his living in [the tourism] business and will be sending
his children to college with what the cruise business does for
him. He said he decided to come testify because he is bullish
on cruising and what it brings to Alaska's economy. Like the
committee he depends on expert advice, and the [Science
Advisory] Panel has said that the discharge is compatible with
Alaska's high standards, compatible with the expectations of
Alaska's guests who care a great deal about the place they are
coming to visit, and compatible with his employees who find
opportunity in Alaska's economy and who care about the state.
He urged the committee to take into account the results
presented by the panel.
2:13:42 PM
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, Commercial Fisherman, testified he has been a
commercial fisherman in Alaska for 35 years and his son and
daughter are commercial fishermen, each having worked their way
through college on fishing boats. His neighbor's son just
bought a new boat and permit and Petersburg is a fishing town,
as are many towns in Southeast Alaska. The biggest industry
employer in the state of Alaska is the fishing industry and HB
80 is bad for Alaska's fishing industry. He said the fishing
industry's whole claim to clean pristine waters and inlets must
have a foundation in reality and in science and in public
perception. Compounding the existing problems of 32 cruise
ships a day every day for five months is the issue of ocean
acidification that is taking place due to airborne carbon
pollution settling in the ocean in amounts that change the
water's pH factor. Weakening and taking a step back on Alaska's
oceans will compound the problem. What about the clean ocean
and water rights [of Alaska's residents]? While he is happy to
share Alaska's wonders with visitors, unwelcome are the cruise
lines that take billions of dollars of profits every year from
Alaska but are unwilling to protect Alaska's clean pristine
waters. He said HB 80 is a slap in the face to thousands of
Alaska's fishing families and to the fishing industry.
2:17:01 PM
DENNIS YOUNG, President, Board of Juneau, Southeast Area
Committeeman, International Longshore and Warehouse Union,
testified that because this issue is such a tough decision, his
organization does not necessarily have one position. The union
will be looking at all the testimony and gathering facts before
presenting something in writing to members of the committee.
2:18:08 PM
KARLA HART, Lobbyist, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
testified she has watched the cruise industry since the early
1980s and first was aware of the cruise ships dumping in the so-
called "donut holes" in the Inside Passage long before 1999 as
mentioned by the commissioner. She said this is a longstanding
issue in terms of protecting the waters of Southeast Alaska and
all of coastal Alaska. She said the rush for HB 80 is
surprising to her and she believes it is not warranted or
appropriate. The scientific review process is still incomplete
and the Science Advisory Panel has not yet disbanded even though
the commissioner and DEC staff spoke of it as a past tense. The
Science Advisory Panel issued in November [2012] what she
understood to be a draft report. Typically with science a draft
report is issued, there is peer review and comments, and these
are revisited to ensure that the report has the rigor that it
needs, which has not yet happened with this report. A final
report should be issued before moving forward. She maintained
the public has not had much opportunity to comment at this
point, given the bill was introduced a week ago. She noted that
the cruise industry, on topics related to it, has always
expressed that it has a very long timeframe for planning and
cannot respond to things that are done quickly. The
artificially created urgency for passing HB 80 because of
permits coming up in April [2013] seems disingenuous to her.
Surely the cruise industry has plans in place and is able to
deal with the issuing of permits and moving forward with this
summer. Taking the time to give proper consideration to this
issue will not risk the cruise industry for this year and it
will respect all of the Alaska voters who voted to have this
clean water element of the 2006 Initiative. Although
Commissioner Hartig portrayed the 2006 Initiative as primarily
being a tax bill, she said Alaskans care a lot about clean water
and healthy fisheries and did not pass the initiative just as a
tax bill; some high profile pollution instances had made that
issue important to Alaskans.
2:20:50 PM
MS. HART pointed out that most of the cruise ships being talked
about are larger than most of the communities in Alaska. If an
Alaska community does not meet discharge standards at its pipe,
people know where that pipe is and know to avoid it when
harvesting subsistence foods. But the discharge from ships can
be anywhere, so a person could be in an area that seems remote
and pristine, yet have the misfortune of being there after
repetitive discharge. More is being learned about the very,
very small concentrations of different pollutants in the water
and how they can impact human health, so it is critical to
protect human health. She understood that some of the ships are
already meeting targets at times and that they are improving
their ability to hit them consistently. Ships can keep
operating and moving toward better technology over the next few
years while the existing law is in place. She appreciated
Representative Tarr's idea of extending the period to meet the
criteria if that is necessary. Instead of backing off, the
cruise industry should be kept under the pressure to increase
its standards. She also appreciated Representative Johnson's
concern for fairness and desire for clean water for everyone.
However, she said there is a distinction between a community
wastewater plant where the community has no actual control over
what goes into the treatment system; whereas a cruise ship does
have some control over what is going into and out of the ship
system. Further, the cruise ship is profit driven and has
benefit from externalizing costs from lower water quality,
whereas when a community cuts its standards the people living
there will pay for it. She urged the committee to slow down the
movement on HB 80, let the Science Advisory Panel complete its
final report, and then see what action is warranted.
2:23:23 PM
MICHELLE RIDGWAY testified she is a lifelong Alaskan who has
spent her entire life in or on the water. Noting that she is
serving on the Cruise Ship Wastewater Science Advisory Panel,
and offering her respect for the panel's highly qualified
members, she said she felt compelled to submit a letter to
Commissioner Hartig expressing her concerns regarding the final
interpretations of findings in the panel's report. Given some
of those findings have been propagated through development of
reports from DEC and the department's letters to members and
testimony, she felt it important to flag her concerns. She
offered to submit her letter to the committee for the record.
Responding to Co-Chair Saddler, she clarified she is speaking on
her own behalf.
MS. RIDGWAY said Alaska has always taken a stand for its
tremendous environment; for example, it fights farmed salmon,
"frankenfish," and anything that might impact salmon, the salmon
industry, or the state's fish and wildlife overall - and now is
the time to continue that course. She said she has deep
concerns regarding passage of the bill at this time because
ecologically and scientifically the state appears to have
arrived at the point envisioned for balancing a great industry
with sustaining Alaska's marine ecosystem. She urged members to
further examine the science available on the implications of
cruise ship effluent on salmon, oyster farms, mussels, plankton,
whales, seals, and other organisms that are acutely and
chronically affected by the levels of cruise ship toxins being
discharged under the current general permit and that would be
allowed in the [proposed] yet-to-be-defined mixing zones.
MS. RIDGWAY stressed that there are very sensitive habitats
within the zero to three nautical miles that comprise Alaska's
state waters. Areas used for subsistence harvesting of black
seaweed; commercial farming of oysters, which bio-accumulate
heavy metals; and critically important fishing grounds for
Alaska's small and large boat fisheries will be bumped up
against when trying to identify where to locate these mixing
zones. It will be very challenging to find locations where it
will be acceptable to discharge contaminants that will not have
long-term deleterious effects on the marine ecosystem. She
urged members to stay the course in finding and advancing the
science and technology that solves Alaska's challenges.
2:27:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER referenced Ms. Ridgway's letter and inquired
whether she had registered her disagreement in the [panel's]
report or with other panel members at the time of the process.
MS. RIDGWAY replied the panel had many productive meetings and
she is not here to speak about the panel process or the report.
In general, many perspectives are presented in the report;
however, selected perspectives are presented in the ultimate
findings in that report. She said her letter clarifies the
three elements specifically by sentence in the findings with
which she did not agree throughout the meetings, verbally and in
writing. In further response, she confirmed that her objections
and disagreements are not included in the findings section of
the report.
2:28:29 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what size mixing zone would be appropriate
to protect the state's waters.
MS. RIDGWAY responded that mixing zones are established through
a very specific process within DEC. She understood that the
objective of a mixing zone is to identify an area sufficiently
large enough such that whatever is discharged in that zone meets
water quality criteria, which are based on the EPA aquatic
toxicity testing standards. However, it is very challenging to
make that calculation in a water column that is highly
stratified in terms of salinity, temperature, and other
constituents, especially when adding in that these vessels are
moving. Because it is codified that the mixing zone achieve
water quality criteria at the edges, it is not to her to
identify how large. She said she finds it very challenging to
identify the edges of a mixing zone given that these very large
vessels are moving throughout their routes in the Inside
Passage, the Gulf of Alaska, and on up to the Arctic. It has
been very challenging even to get information on the effluent
right at the pipe at one point.
2:30:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether it would be appropriate to make
the mixing zone relative to the size of the vessel, in other
words at the stern of the vessel.
MS. RIDGWAY answered that that is not relevant to the physical
processes that must occur to sufficiently dilute a toxin to an
acceptable level. The size of the stern is irrelevant. She
noted that propellers and mixing has been discussed, but pointed
out that many ships now use azipods instead of huge propellers.
The speed and size of the vessel have very little to do with how
large that mixing zone should be, it is whether the objective is
met to protect clean water by meeting the water quality
standards at depth and at the spatial extent of that zone - in a
moving scenario.
2:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he thinks Ms. Ridgway has called
into question the entire validity of the [panel's] report. He
asked whether Ms. Ridgway dissented during the committee process
or afterward and, if it was during the process, why was it not
included in the report.
MS. RIDGWAY replied she is an Alaskan who cares about sustaining
Alaska's ecosystem, fisheries, and many communities with
industry. She said she is introducing herself to the committee
because her letter is out there and her letter states on three
sentences specific findings that are captured in the report with
which she disagreed during the committee process. She
understood her disagreement might raise questions, but said she
cannot speak on the panel's behalf or on the process that was
undertaken.
2:33:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, restating his question, asked whether
Ms. Ridgway offered to the [panel] the three points stated in
her letter and the [panel] did not include those points in the
report.
MS. RIDGWAY responded that during the course of the panel's
deliberations and during the busy, lengthy process of group
writing the report, she disagreed - consistently - with the
three sentences she has highlighted in her letter. While
offering respect for her fellow panel members, she said many
people agreed, but she wanted to clarify that she flagged those
three consistently and she still has concerns regarding those
three things.
2:34:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said his understanding was that the panel
made provisions for dissenting opinions and there were none in
the report. He inquired whether Ms. Ridgway submitted her
comments as a dissenting opinion to the [panel].
MS. RIDGWAY answered that her opinion, as well as those of all
the panelists, were discussed in many in-person and
teleconference meetings. She said she expressed her opinion and
it is largely in the report, and there are some ultimate
findings with which she disagreed. She said she offered her
letter to Commissioner Hartig simply to clarify those points.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER noted that the date of the [panel] report is
November 1, 2012, and the date of Ms. Ridgway's letter is
January 17, 2013.
2:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood the state is using EPA standards
for the dilution factor. She asked whether Ms. Ridgway believes
those standards are reflective of what happens in an arctic or
cold water environment. She further asked whether Ms. Ridgway
believes additional work should be done in Alaska to have a
better understanding of mixing zones in Alaska's environment.
MS. RIDGWAY replied she supports research to obtain better
information about the oceanographic features of Alaskan waters,
so as to improve the ability to potentially predict the spatial
extent of a zone in which a suite of contaminants in the
effluent might be potentially diluted to the point of meeting
water quality criteria.
2:36:28 PM
CHIP THOMA, President, Responsible Cruising in Alaska, testified
that his organization was formed in 1997 to promote a head tax
for Juneau, which was successful; his organization also did the
2006 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative, which set up the laws and
taxes being talked about today. He said his organization's
preference is that large cruise ships discharge into federal
waters, not state waters. This would avoid all complications
because no permit is needed and it is legal to dump waste beyond
the three-mile limit. He related that a large number of cruise
ships in the Alaska fleet have small holding capacities and some
are riddled with copper pipes, a deadly combination because of
the wastewater having very high copper counts. These ships,
primarily the Princess fleet, are now discharging in Juneau
through a hookup at a private dock that goes directly into the
[municipal treatment] plant. He said he thought it was being
done on a fairly regular basis, but did not know how many ships
a day were doing this. Mr. Thoma shared that Juneau's new
cruise ship dock will be operational by 2015 and will have two
municipal and two private hookups, paid for by the head tax,
that will allow for discharge of wastewater, but not solids or
high grease content, into the municipal treatment plant. He
said Jim Dorn of Carson Dorn, Inc. is working with private
industry, the city, and the cruise ships to set this up and it
is nearing approval.
2:39:26 PM
MR. THOMA related that, to his knowledge, the new cruise ships
being built will no longer have copper pipes or a lot of
galvanized pipes; therefore the copper, nickel, and zinc will go
away as soon as the [older] ships are re-deployed elsewhere.
Offering his understanding that copper only affects salmon, he
said these [older] ships could go elsewhere in the world.
Another issue, he continued, is whether the bunker water that is
put onto the ships is higher than the 3 parts per billion. He
said he learned from conversations with the water utility
superintendents of Ketchikan, Juneau, and Skagway that
Ketchikan's bunker water had a high copper count of 17 parts per
billion (ppb) and a huge lead count of 70 ppb. The
superintendent subsequently discovered that a newly installed
ball joint fitting was made of metal from India, and when it was
replaced with a plastic ball joint the bunker water retested at
2 ppb copper and 0.6 ppb lead. So, the source was that one ball
joint. Skagway had a similar situation: its two municipal
docks had less than 1 ppb of copper, but its private dock had 6-
9 ppb copper and higher counts for heavy metals. Because the
private dock receives water from the same treatment plant as the
municipal docks, the Skagway superintendent surmised it must be
the older fittings on the private dock. Juneau has 3 ppb of
copper.
2:42:32 PM
MR. THOMA, responding to Co-Chair Feige, confirmed bunker water
is the water that cruise ships take on for drinking. He added
that this same water goes through the ship's system and is
discharged. In further response, he confirmed that bunker water
comes not from the cruise ship, but from water taken onboard in
Vancouver, Seattle, and Alaska. He pointed out that all water
in Southeast Alaska is below the 3 ppb, but when discharged from
the ships it is high in copper and heavy metals due to leaching
of the ships' pipes from water softeners.
2:43:45 PM
ERIC LEE, Commercial Fisherman, testified he is a third
generation commercial fisherman and he is concerned about the
salmon runs in Southeast Alaska because the native runs have
declined, although the hatchery runs are doing fine. He said he
is very concerned about the levels of dissolved copper in the
water because it is well documented that copper is very toxic
and interferes with olfactory functioning in salmon, which is
critical for salmon finding their way back to their streams. It
is becoming more and more established that the level of toxicity
can be as low as a few parts per billion. Because the discharge
is fresh water, it stays on top or near the surface of the salt
water for quite a while and mixes with the same fresh water that
is near the surface that the salmon depend on for their scent
memories that lead them back to their stream of origin. The
copper could therefore have a very detrimental effect to
commercial fishermen as well as sport fishermen. Before
relaxing standards by allowing mixing zones, there needs to be
more discussion and determination of what the facts really are,
including more scientific research. Mr. Lee said there is a
distinction between water coming from a ship and a shore-based
source, in that a shore-based source is relatively constant and
is very likely part of the scent memory of the out-migrating
salmon, whereas cruise ships are moving cities with random and
variable discharges that are not part of a salmon's scent memory
and could be disorienting because of the dissolved copper. He
urged members to not support HB 80 and urged that the state's
present standards for heavy metals - without mixing zones - be
maintained.
2:48:08 PM
WILLIAM JOHNSON testified that he used to run a sewage treatment
plant at camps in Prudhoe Bay. He said he opposes HB 80 and
stated that the cruise ship industry brought this upon itself
because the ships were putting bad substances, such as dry
cleaning and photograph developing chemicals, into state waters.
He did not want to see a rollback of current law, which was
established by citizen initiative. The ships can dump their
tanks way offshore in federal waters before coming into state
waters and if a ship runs out of room in its storage tanks while
in state waters it could dump the discharge into a municipal
facility. He understood that the newer cruise ships have
separate graywater and blackwater tanks. He said the rollback
in HB 80 is a slap in the face to all Alaskans.
2:50:30 PM
KATHLEEN MENKE testified she came to Alaska 20 years ago and
like everybody in Alaska she eats salmon, halibut, hooligan,
crab, and shrimp. During her five years living in Colorado she
was a certified Class A water and wastewater treatment operator,
Class A being the highest of four levels. She stated that
mixing zones are not the way to regulate discharge - whatever is
being monitored needs to be monitored at the point of discharge.
It is impossible to regulate or enforce mixing zones,
particularly for moving cruise ships on oceans. She urged
committee members to take this into consideration and give the
bill more thought.
2:52:02 PM
ANDY ROGERS, Deputy Director, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
testified that his organization is the statewide chamber
representing hundreds of diverse businesses across Alaska. He
said the chamber's members share the common goal of making
Alaska a viable and competitive place to do business. The
chamber and its members fully support passage of HB 80 and its
companion bill, SB 29. Chamber members have adopted a position
to advocate for legislation and regulations that are based on
sound science rather than precautionary methods. The work of
the Science Advisory Panel shows that cruise ships operating in
Alaska's waters enjoy the most advanced and efficient treatment
systems available, with their discharges meeting higher
standards than water discharged by any municipal treatment plan
in the state of Alaska. Chamber members also support
consistency and predictability in Alaska's permitting process.
The general permit issued in 2010 was subject to lengthy and
costly litigation through administrative appeal, so it is
reasonable to expect that any new permits would also be subject
to similar litigation. This would threaten Alaska's competitive
appeal as a market for an industry where resources are highly
mobile and schedules set years in advance. The importance of
this issue to the economic health of the state cannot be
overstated. In addition to coastal communities, the cruise ship
industry impacts communities throughout the state. The cruise
ship industry is a fragile industry as well as a mobile one.
The ships that bring tens of thousands of visitors to Alaska's
port communities can be re-deployed to venues that have
reasonable permitting and attainable standards and a reduction
or loss of cruise ship passengers would impact most of the
state. Most passengers disembark to participate in land tours,
impacting hundreds of businesses and creating thousands of jobs.
He urged the committee to pass HB 80.
2:57:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER closed public testimony and held over HB 80.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated he did not think it good public
process for committee members to not have the time to ask
questions of the witnesses before public testimony is closed.
He said members should be able to ask witnesses questions at the
time of their testimony so the witnesses are not inconvenienced
with having to come back and members are not inconvenienced by
being unable to ask the questions. He urged that in the future
members be allowed to ask questions of witnesses so members can
get clarification right away and have the answers on record for
everybody to hear.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB80 Admiiralty Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Alaska Cruise Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Alaska ACT Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 DEC Preliminary Report on Cruise Ship Wastewater.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Fiscal Note DEC.PDF |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Responsible Cruising Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 SAP Report to Legislature cover letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Version A.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 NorthStar Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 SAP_Preliminary_Report_November_2012.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |
| HB80 Lindblad Letter.pdf |
HRES 1/25/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 80 |