Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/11/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB182 | |
| HB74 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 74-COMM. VESSEL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/FEE
3:06:35 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act repealing the ocean rangers
program; and providing for an effective date."
3:07:35 PM
JASON BRUNE, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), on behalf of the House Rules Committee by
request of the governor, presented the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 74, with the use of a PowerPoint presentation, entitled
"CSHB74 Cruise ship Environmental Monitoring." [CSHB 74 was
subsequently adopted as the working document by the committee.]
COMMISSIONER BRUNE relayed that his intent is to develop a
program that is a new, improved, and modernized approach to the
Ocean Ranger Program, which was established via the [voter-
approved Ballot Measure 2] initiative process about 12 years ago
[2006]. He began with slide 2, entitled "A Modernized
Approach," which read:
head2right This bill clarifies that the cruise industry will be
regulated in a similar manner to other industries
head2right Existing statutes limit DEC's ability to effectively
monitor cruise ship emissions and discharges
head2right This CS maintains DEC's current authority and adds
flexibility for how it is used
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for an example of how DEC regulates
another industry.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that most industries get one
inspection per year. The wastewater treatment facilities for
local communities, the oil and gas industry, the mining
industry, and the fishing industry all have one or maybe two
inspections annually. They do not have 24/7 monitoring or even
75 percent or 50 percent monitoring at their facilities.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that in the industry of
commercial fishing, there is 100 percent observer coverage, and
there may be parallel examples of regulatory oversight in some
of the other industries mentioned.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that [for fishing vessels] there is
coverage for counting fish but not for every environmental
discharge or other regulatory oversights. It is for counting
species and for counting the numbers, sizes, and total biomass.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE stated that when the initiative was passed,
it required 100 percent coverage on each cruise ship; the 100
percent coverage was never met. He moved to slide 3, entitled
"Current Program Challenges and Inefficiencies," which read:
head2right There were typically 22 ocean rangers on vessels
throughout a summer season
head2right Ocean rangers performed in-port and underway
observations
head2right DEC staff spent majority of time going through ocean
ranger reports
head2right Ocean rangers looked for potential non-compliance with
marine discharge and pollution requirements and to
ensure proper sanitation, health, and safety practices
for passengers and crew
head2right Ocean rangers were observers, not inspectors, and
passed concerns to DEC for further investigation
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed his understanding that DEC's
interpretation of the statute is that each vessel needs at least
one inspection per year to achieve 100 percent coverage under
the law. He asked how many sailings have Ocean Ranger coverage.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied that approximately 60-70 percent of
vessels currently have Ocean Ranger coverage in any given
season. He reiterated that the Ocean Rangers were observers not
inspectors, therefore, would pass their daily reports onto DEC
staff.
3:12:54 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE referred to slide 4, entitled "Current
Program Challenges and Inefficiencies," which read in part:
head2right Over 12 years, DEC has spent roughly $40 million on
the ocean ranger contract. During that time, six of
the DEC issued notices of violation (NOVs) were
attributable to ocean ranger observations
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that the six violations attributable to
the Ocean Ranger Program were out of a total of 264 notices of
violations. He suggested that if the program were funded
through general fund (GF), it would have been eliminated years
ago. It is funded through the $5 per lower berth fee. He
asked, "Is that money well spent?" He mentioned that most of
the violations are either observations and violations detected
by DEC staff or self-reported by the industry itself.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 5, entitled "CS Bill
Overview," which read:
head2right Simplified fee structure
head2right Moving detailed statutes to regulation
head2right Incorporating technology
head2right Updating wastewater systems in port communities
through a grant or loan program
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the report of six NOVs
attributed to the Ocean Ranger Program and suggested that the
presence of oceans rangers on board vessels may have contributed
to best practices.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that he agrees with that perspective
to some extent; however, he said that if a company wished to
commit a nefarious act, it could do so, regardless of an Ocean
Ranger being on board. The Ocean Rangers do not work 24 hours
per day and are busy with other duties at times. He offered
that proposed under CSHB 74, there would be announced and
unannounced inspections, which would have a deterrent effect
similar to 24-hour coverage.
3:16:06 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE turned to slide 6, entitled "Current Fee
Structure," and slide 7, listing the ten components of the fee
structure under AS 46.03.480(b)(1)-(10). He offered that it is
confusing how the fee structure is assessed. The fees are
assessed based on the number of lower berths; for example, the
charge is "$175 for a commercial passenger vessel with overnight
accommodations for at least 100 but not more than 249 passengers
for hire" [AS 46.03.480(b)(2)]. Under CSHB 74, there would be a
$4 per berth fee to pay for the Ocean Rangers for large vessels
and $1 per berth fee for the Commercial Passenger Vessel
Environmental Compliance (CPVEC) Program. It would result in a
simplified $5 per berth fee.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE continued with slide 8, entitled "Proposed
Fee Structure," which read:
head2right New fee would take effect in 2021 cruise season
head2right All vessels over 50 berths pay $5 per berth
head2right Large vessels pay roughly the same, small vessels
will see an increase in fees and an increase in
oversight
head2right The fee would be reduced by $1 per berth for any ship
that maintains a DEC-approved electronic wastewater
monitoring system
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that the intent of the proposed
legislation is to have a $5 per berth fee put into the CPVEC
fund.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the increase in fees for the
small vessels, mentioned on slide 8, and asked for the fee
amount.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that the fee would depend on the
number of voyages of the vessel; it would be a $5 per berth fee,
which is currently not paid. He said, "If they weren't assessed
it, and there [were] a hundred berths on the ship, it would be a
$500 per voyage additional cost for that vessel." He added that
many of the smaller vessels are luxury vessels. He estimated
the full increase in cost for the smaller vessels over the
course of a full season to be about $60,000.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the vessels discussed are
overnight vessels.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered yes. He confirmed that the small
boats used for day excursions are not included.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 9, entitled "Staying Current
with Technology and Environmental Standards," which read:
head2right This CS removes sections of statute that are overly
detailed and do not allow for changing technology and
environmental standards
head2right Requires DEC write regulations that address the items
removed from statute
head2right Putting requirements in regulation allows DEC to
respond to future improvements in waste treatment and
monitoring technologies
head2right New technology could provide for 24/7 electronic
monitoring of ships' discharge ports
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the proposed legislation would
either allow DEC to perform the monitoring or to hire a
contractor to perform the monitoring with oversight by the
department.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered, "Yes, that is correct."
3:20:56 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE relayed, "I have often said that ... we
should have the highest of environmental standards, and indeed
we do have the highest of environmental standards in the world,
in Alaska, and I'm very proud of that." He continued by saying
that Alaska should not only hold industry to a high standard but
should hold itself to that same high standard. He referred to
slide 10, entitled "Water Quality Improvements," which read:
head2right Part of the fees will be used to upgrade wastewater
treatment facilities in port communities
head2right Large cruise ship permit allows up to 40 fecal colony
forming units per 100 ml
head2right Local waste water treatment facility permit allows up
to 1.5 million fecal colony forming units per 100 ml.
head2right Many of the over one million yearly cruise ship
passengers will use on-shore restrooms when visiting
Alaska ports
COMMISSIONER BRUNE emphasized that he is not suggesting that
cruise ships should be allowed to discharge 1.5 million fecal
coliforms. He said he is suggesting that Alaska should do
everything in its power to bring the local communities up to the
high standard that the cruise industry is already meeting. He
pointed out that many of the cruise ship passengers use onshore
restrooms; and many of Alaska's communities were not built to
accommodate the large number of visitors. He maintained that he
is proposing through the legislation to use some of the funds to
upgrade the local wastewater systems.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE continued with slide 11 and explained that
under the Federal Clean Water Act is the 301(h) waiver [allowing
municipalities to discharge wastewater with less than full
secondary treatment as required by law]; the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) oversees wastewater discharge from
communities with the 301(h) waiver. He pointed out that the
communities of Sitka, Skagway, and Ketchikan may still discharge
up to 1.5 million fecal coliforms per 100 milliliters (ml) of
water.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the communities listed were the
only ones with the waiver.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that that the list [on the slide] was
selective of those communities that are visited frequently by
cruise shops. He added that there are communities with 301(h)-
like waivers.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether Hoonah has a waiver.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE said that Hoonah is not on the list of
communities with 301(h) waivers.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked for confirmation that the intent of
the proposed legislation is to maintain the large cruise ship
permit allowing up to 40 fecal colony [forming units per 100
ml].
COMMISSIONER BRUNE emphasized that under the proposed
legislation, there would be no change in the requirements. The
intent is to bring the wastewater discharge of the local
communities up to a level better for the environment.
3:24:44 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 12, entitled "2020 Cruise Ship
Season," which read:
head2right Marine engineers (DEC staff and contractors) will
perform initial and annual inspections on ships
operating in Alaska as early in the season as possible
head2right Marine engineers and/or DEC inspectors will perform
both random and targeted inspections in-port and
underway
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the scope of expertise of a
marine engineer. He asked, "What is a marine engineer in the
context of cruise ship wastewater compliance?"
COMMISSIONER BRUNE relayed that marine engineers have extensive
experience on boats; they have extensive training and special
classification and certification. The engineer looks at the
"as-built" of a ship and confirms that it has everything as
purported. He offered to provide more information.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for information on practices in other
states with extensive cruise ship visitations - including
enforcement regimes, workforce, and operations.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE committed to providing the information
requested. He reiterated that Alaska has some of the highest
environmental standards in the world with its current program.
He said that the administration commits to maintaining that
standard with the proposed legislation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked about the available workforce for the
positions needed and the timeline for hiring.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that one reason only three or four
of the current Ocean Rangers are Alaskans is because it is a
highly technical, highly qualified workforce; there are not many
in Alaska. He said that his thought is to bring on one
additional marine engineer to work for DEC, therefore, having
two of them, and the other hires would be inspectors. When DEC
needs engineers early in the season, it would contract for them.
For future years, it may be a seasonal position or a contractor.
3:29:02 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 13, entitled "2020 Cruise Ship
Season," which read:
head2right DEC Inspection, Monitoring, and Compliance
head2right 4 new DEC positions
head2right 10 DEC staff available for the cruise ship season to
review reports and conduct in-port and underway
inspections, compliance and enforcement actions
head2right Inspections will be random and targeted
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that inspections would be announced as
well as unannounced.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked where the four new DEC positions
would be based.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that he expects that during the
cruise ship season the positions would be based predominantly in
Southeast Alaska; the rest of the year the inspectors would have
other duties. He mentioned that the cruise ships visit Homer,
Anchorage, and Dutch Harbor; therefore, the focus for inspection
cannot be only in Southeast Alaska waters; to be "random and
targeted" the inspectors must show up at all ports of call. He
expressed that he did not know exactly where they would be
based.
REPRESENTATIVE SHAW asked whether the Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS) must meet the same environmental oversight
requirements as the cruise ship industry. He mentioned that
AMHS transports people similarly to what the cruise ships do.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered yes. They are required to meet the
same standards; however, the commissioner of DEC and the
commissioner of the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOTP&F) are afforded the flexibility to negotiate
the cost charged per berth for the ferries, and that negotiated
fee has been zero; under CSHB 74, that process would remain as
it.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled legislation from a previous
legislative session exempting small commercial passenger vessels
from wastewater discharge requirements.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE stated he is not aware of the legislation.
He opined that state ferries should be held to the same standard
as industry and as local communities; all entities should adhere
to the state's environmental standard.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for more information on the industry trend
of small luxury cruise ships coming to Alaska and whether DEC is
addressing this trend through its monitoring program.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded, "Absolutely." He said that is one
of the reasons that inspections of smaller vessels would be
incorporated into DEC's regime. He acknowledged that
accumulatively these vessels can have a significant impact;
therefore, oversight is necessary.
3:34:30 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE turned to slide 14, entitled "Additional
Changes," which read:
head2right Repeals and re-enacts 46.03.482(c) addressing fee
schedule for State of Alaska vessels
head2right Repeals citizens' suits
head2right Conforming changes
COMMISSIONER reviewed the information on slide 15, entitled
"Effective Dates," as follows: If CSHB 74 is enacted into law,
immediately or retroactively to April 1, 2020, the Ocean Ranger
Program would be repealed, and the fees applied to DEC's
activities. The current [Ocean Ranger Program] contract is $3.5
million annually; it has brought in about $40 million since
inception; the funds would be transferred to DEC for its
activities. On January 1, 2021, the $5 fee would be in place
and the new regulations would be in place.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS expressed an interest in hearing from the
department in the future about whether the inspection regime is
maintaining an equivalence with the Ocean Ranger regime in terms
of number of vessels inspected and number of sailings
[inspected], so that the public has confidence that the coverage
is continuing.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that ten DEC staff would be
committed to doing inspections and would inspect every vessel
early in the season. He offered to report to the legislature on
the number of ships inspected to determine whether that number
meets the legislature's expectations.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to slide 14 and asked for an
explanation of "citizen's suits."
3:37:17 PM
EMMA POKON, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law (DOL), responded that
currently AS 46.03.481 provides for citizens' suits, whereby any
member of the public can bring a lawsuit against the owner or
operator of a cruise ship or against the department for failing
to perform an act or duty that the public member determines
should have been performed. She maintained that under the
proposed legislation, DEC would have the flexibility to decide
how to approach any violation that occurs and the best course of
action with respect to enforcement.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether that provision in the law
has ever been employed by an aggrieved citizen.
MS. POKON answered, "Not to my knowledge."
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 16, entitled "Fiscal Impacts,"
which read:
head2right Revenue: Large ships see little change, fees go up for
small vessels in 2021
head2right Contract for marine engineer inspections will be
considerably lower than for Ocean Rangers
head2right Attached fiscal note includes expenditure authority
for the 2020 cruise season.
head2right Personal services and other support costs for four new
positions add to DEC's baseline budget
head2right Expect future capital appropriation in grant authority
to improve water quality near communities
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that inspections would be done on shore
and possibly at one consistent location; the contract would be
shorter than the full-season marine engineer requirement for
Ocean Rangers currently.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for confirmation that there are funds from
the Ocean Ranger fees; and under CSHB 74, those funds would be
used for the new purposes under the regulatory regime.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied, "Absolutely." There is about $10
million in the fund currently, which would be used for the
proposed functions, given spending authority to do so. He
restated that $3.5 million has been collected annually for the
Ocean Ranger Program; about $40 million over 12 years has been
spent on the program; CSHB 74 proposes to use the excess funds
generated annually - about 50 percent of what is collected from
the $5 per berth fee - for upgrading shore-based wastewater
treatment facilities in the communities that are visited by and
affected by the cruise ship industry. He maintained that
ultimately there would be a significant positive environmental
impact on those communities; however, future capital
appropriations from the legislature would be required. He
maintained that the goal is to have a program like Village Safe
Water or the [Clean Water] State Revolving Fund, whereby
communities would need to demonstrate need and financial
commitment and work with DEC staff to develop a program to
upgrade community wastewater treatment systems.
3:42:12 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE stated:
Our commitment is to making sure that the waters of
Alaska are protected; that we are open for business
for those companies that are choosing Alaska as a
destination; but that we are insuring that our high
environmental standards are going to be adhered to by
those companies; and putting that authority with DEC
staff and DEC inspectors.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE reviewed slide 17, entitled "What Will Not
Change," which read:
head2right DEC's authority to conduct inspections at reasonable
times and ability to get a warrant if necessary
head2right DEC's vessel registration system, which is required
for all passenger vessels with over 50 overnight
berths.
head2right Air emission monitoring program
head2right The large cruise ship wastewater discharge general
permit
head2right The small cruise ship and ferry best management plan
requirements
head2right Sampling or reporting requirements
head2right What may not be discharged to Alaska's environment
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that air monitoring would be done by
the Division of Air Quality.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked to what extent air emissions enter the
water.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that different ships have different
technologies; some discharge air emissions into the water during
the sulfur conversion process; some use scrubbers [air-emission
control equipment] on their smokestacks.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether air emission discharge into the
water is monitored by [Division of Water] staff.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE expressed his belief that the amounts of
sulfur discharged into the water is so far below what naturally
occurs that the impact is negligible.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled the bill [exempting small
commercial passenger vessels from wastewater discharge
regulations] - Senate Bill 3 [Thirtieth Alaska State Legislature
(2017-2018), signed into law 8/10/17] - which exempts vessels
under 250 [passengers]. He asked whether under the proposed
legislation there would be any provisions that alter or repeal
provisions in law established through Senate Bill 3.
3:45:45 PM
MS. POKON replied that there are provisions in CSHB 74 that
remove detail from statute with the intention of putting that
detail into regulations. The intent is not to change provisions
in the current scheme but to put them into regulations to allow
DEC the flexibility to react to changing circumstances in the
future.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether the proposed legislation
would maintain the provisions exempting small vessels from
wastewater discharge requirements.
MS. POKON answered that those provisions would be in regulation;
DEC would continue to have the authority to distinguish between
different classes of dischargers. She said there could be a set
of rules applying to large vessels and a set of rules applying
to small vessels based on the risks they present. She added
that the department can apply the best management practices to
the smaller vessels - as is done currently - and continue to
require the more robust permit coverage.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked about DEC's current air monitoring
for cruise ships - programmatically and operationally.
MS. POKON answered that currently the primary air emissions
monitoring by DEC uses opacity monitoring [EPA] "Method 9" from
shore; in the last couple years ambient air monitors have been
used in a test project. She offered to provide more information
on capacity monitoring.
3:49:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what Ocean Rangers look at. He
asked, "Do they only look at the fecal coliform and the sewage
discharge, or do they look at other aspects of the discharge
from the cruise ships?"
MS. POKON answered that the Ocean Rangers observed compliance
with a variety of federal and state environmental requirements
and reported on it. She said that they did not have the
authority of a DEC staff person or the expertise of an inspector
with respect to collecting evidence or keeping records for
enforcement purposes; they were looking more broadly.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that Ocean Rangers were looking at
pools, nail salons, food distribution areas, and other health
and safety practices. He continued by adding to the list: air
pollution, oil and fuel, hazardous materials, solid waste,
permitted ships, ballast water, wastewater, certificates,
safety, health, and sanitation.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether electronic monitoring was
used only for sewage discharge. He asked how other monitoring
was performed, such as for diesel dumping.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE said that the emphasis would be on wastewater
discharge and other discharges. Air monitoring would continue
from shore. The other monitoring comes under other regulatory
oversight from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or
from other federal entities performing inspection. He expressed
his belief that much of what the Ocean Rangers have done was
duplicative. The focus would be on those items having the
greatest risk to the environment - discharges from the boat
through air and wastewater processes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked for confirmation that air would be
monitored from the shore.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that air monitoring would not
change much at all. The Ocean Rangers were not involved much
with air monitoring. Air monitoring was performed from shore
through a contract, and DEC trained personnel used the Method 9
analysis. Most of the inspections came from the shore;
therefore, the Ocean Rangers were not involved.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the electronic [wastewater]
monitoring system proposed under the legislation would track the
other discharges that the Ocean Rangers tracked.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that the electronic monitoring would
be focused on wastewater discharge. The department would have
the flexibility to take advantage of any new technology in air
monitoring that exists in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether fuel leakage would be
electronically monitored.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that many vessels deal with that
issue. When DEC gets reports on leakages, the Division of Spill
Prevention and Response (SPAR) responds to them. He expressed
that if fuel leakage monitoring technology exists, DEC would
want to be aware of it.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered that the amounts of discharge
from small boats are not a concern in the same way that
discharges from multi-thousand passenger ships are. He
maintained that he expects DEC to continue to look at the
environmental hazards coming out of the "small cities" that are
coming into Alaska ports. He asserted that fuel leakages should
be electronically monitored and regulated; the overhaul of DEC's
environmental monitoring should be made to work for protecting
Alaska's oceans.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE stated that if there is a way to
electronically monitor fuel leakages, DEC is absolutely
interested. He offered to provide more information on that
possibility.
3:55:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS commented on the many polluting discharges from
ships and his interest in electronic monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to slide 12 and asked the
question: Who would be responsible for scheduling the early
season inspections?
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that DEC staff would be responsible
for them - namely the Division of Water under Director Randy
Bates.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there is adequate staff to
schedule inspections and perform the monitoring.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered yes - with what has been proposed
with the fiscal note (FN) and supplemental appropriation
request. He reiterated that under CSHB 74, the cruise ship
industry would still be regulated significantly more than any
other industry or community wastewater discharge system or air
emissions. He asserted that DEC has sufficient staff to inspect
ships and meet the demand from the Alaska public that ships use
Alaska waters in an environmentally responsible way.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred again to observer coverage in
the fishing industry and acknowledged that the primary function
of observers is to collect biological data, species being
caught, and to ensure fishermen are not cheating; however, it is
very much an oversight and regulatory function. In any of the
fishing vessels there is 100 percent coverage. He opined that
it is not fair to consider the cruise ship industry a complete
and total outlier in terms of regulatory oversight.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to slide 17 and asked how the
DEC vessel registration system worked and its function.
MS. POKON answered that any vessel intending to operate in the
marine waters of the state registers with the department in
advance of entering the waters. Some of those vessels intend to
discharge while in state waters, therefore, must obtain a permit
or if a small vessel, follow the best management practices
(BMP). Through the registration program, DEC has a record of
the vessels that are going to be in state waters during the
operating season.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether all vessels with over 50
overnight berths are registered in the system.
MS. POKON said, "I believe so."
4:00:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred to slide 13 and asked how the
supplemental budget request would coordinate with the new
positions and the transition to prepare for the 2020 cruise ship
season.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE explained that the supplemental line item
shows $900,000, which includes the four new DEC positions as
well as a contract to hire marine engineers for the early season
inspections. The four positions would consist of one marine
engineer and three regular inspectors. It is expected that
those individuals would be retained for the subsequent fiscal
year. It is unclear at this point whether the work would be
done by DEC staff or DEC staff in conjunction with a marine
engineer contract.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there is uncertainty
regarding filling the four positions, therefore, a contract
would be needed to fill the gap.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied that he is confident that DEC can
fill three of the positions because they don't require marine
engineers. He said he is hopeful that DEC can hire a marine
engineer for the fourth position. He said that in order to
perform the early season inspections to cover all the ships
coming into Alaska, DEC may need to contract with marine
engineers or hire seasonal employees.
4:03:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the fourth bullet on slide 9,
which read: "New technology could provide for 24/7 electronic
monitoring of ships' discharge ports." He asked whether "could"
means that future technology could provide for 24/7 electronic
monitoring of ships' discharge ports or whether the potential
exists now and could provide the monitoring.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE relayed that some of the newer ships have
technology that documents when the ports are open; some of the
older ships still rely on hand-written logbooks. He offered
that the goal is that when internet connectivity is "amazing"
and ships are underway and open their ports, there would be
real-time notification to DEC that a port is open. He added
that the possibility is that DEC would acquire a great deal of
data. He said that DEC could potentially do "geofencing," that
is, associating an open port with a geographic location to
notify DEC of ports being opened in areas not allowed. He
reminded the committee that most of the violations of which DEC
becomes aware are self-reported. He mentioned that the recent
violation that occurred in Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve [the illegal discharge of grey water in the park on
9/11/18] was self-reported.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY mentioned the value of the Marine Exchange
of Alaska in vessel monitoring and tracking.
4:06:29 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:06:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt the CS for HB 74, Version 31-
GH1117\S, Marx, 2/10/20, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version S was before the committee.
4:07:19 PM
MS. POKON reviewed the sectional analysis for CSHB 74, included
in the committee packet, with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation. The sectional analysis read as follows:
Section 1 Amends AS 46.03.460 to clarify that DEC
has organizational flexibility to regulate cruise
ships with personnel from different DEC divisions
(air, water, etc.) and directing DEC to adopt
regulations implementing the simplified environmental
compliance statutes.
Section 2 Repeals and reenacts AS 46.03.463 to
simplify and broadly consolidate existing subsections
(a) (c), (e), and (f) and (h) into a single
subsection, enabling DEC to set specific discharge
limits and requirements in regulation.
Section 3 Amends AS 46.03.465(a) to provide DEC with
flexibility to establish the form and timing for
cruise ships to report to DEC.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what the desired flexibility or
timing the department envisions for submitting reports.
MS. POKON answered that currently statute requires that it not
be later than five days after each calendar month of operation
in state waters and be provided monthly. She relayed that under
the proposed legislation, timing would be depend on several
factors and what is workable for staff. She continued with the
sectional analysis, which read:
Section 4 Amends AS 46.03.465(c) to clarify DEC's
authority to inspect vessel wastewater and air
emissions systems.
Section 5 Conforming amendments to AS 46.03.465(d).
Section 6 Amends AS 46.03.465(d) to authorize DEC to
require certain reports in a particular form (e.g.,
electronic).
MS. POKON added that Section 4 would allow for inspections while
the ship is underway. Regarding Section 6 and in response to
Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, she confirmed that records were
submitted to DEC in the form of photographs of hand-written
logs.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that electronically sending a
photograph of a hand-written log complied with the requirement
in the initiative for electronic submission. He maintained that
the time DEC staff spent transcribing the information was a
waste of technical staff time. Electronic submissions in a
format that could "plug into" DEC's system would allow better
use of staff time.
4:11:55 PM
MS. POKON continued with the sectional analysis, which read:
Section 7 Conforming amendment to AS 46.03.465(h).
Section 8 Conforming amendment to AS 46.03.465(i).
Section 9 Amends AS 46.03.480(a) to establish a
simplified environmental compliance fee of $5 per
berth per voyage on all commercial passenger vessels
operating in state waters. This replaces both the $4
fee for the ocean rangers and the matrix of general
environmental compliance fees. This amendment also
reduces the $5 fee by $1 for vessels that use
electronic monitoring systems that will improve DEC's
ability to efficiently oversee environmental
compliance. As noted in Section 19, this amendment to
the fee structure would become effective January 1,
2021.
Section 10 Repeals and re-enacts 46.03.480(c) to
conform to changes created by deleting clarifying
language included with the fee structure in the
repealed version of 46.03.480(b). This does not change
the effect of (c) as it currently exists in statute.
Section 11 Amends AS 46.03.482(c) to remove obsolete
language and to broaden the stated purposes for which
the legislature might appropriate the collected fees
to include a grant or loan program created by Section
12.
Section 12 Adds a new section, AS 46.03.483,
authorizing DEC to create a grant or loan program to
support improvements to shore-based wastewater
treatment facilities necessary to serve visiting
cruise ships and cruise ship passengers.
Section 13 Repeals a number of detailed statutes
governing commercial passenger vessels.
Section 14 Repeals the ocean ranger statute, AS
46.03.476, separately so that it may have a different
effective date. This repeal will be retroactive to
April 2020 (see Section 17) so that DEC can transition
to staff inspections this season.
Section 15 Transition language added to the
uncodified law to authorize DEC to work on regulations
before the majority of the bill becomes effective in
January 2021.
Section 16 Includes legislative intent language that
clarifies that the $4 fee collected under AS
46.03.480(d) may be used for funding services to
passenger vessels, including regulatory services. This
ensures DEC can collect the established fee this year
to support the agency's cruise ship environmental
compliance work notwithstanding the repeal of the
ocean rangers statute.
Section 17 Section 14 (repeal of ocean rangers
requirement) is retroactive to April 2020.
Section 18 Provides an immediate effective date for
Sections 14 17 including intent language
specifically for the summer 2020 cruise season
(Section 16) and transition language providing
authority to work on regulations (Section 15).
Section 19 Provides a special effective date of
January 1, 2021 for the majority of the bill; this
ensures that DEC has time to adopt regulations before
the repeals in Section 13 and other amendments become
effective.
4:14:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS summarized the questions for the committee to
consider, for which more information from DEC is requested, and
for which stakeholders' input is needed. They were: What
percentage of sailings should have onboard inspections? What's
the right balance of details for an inspection regime in the
statute versus to be promulgated subsequently in regulation? Is
the $1 per berth fee reduction a good amount to incentivize
installation and operating of 24/7 monitoring? Can the proposed
legislation be drafted better? Regarding workforce, are there
highly skilled occupations, other than marine engineers, that
could augment DEC's inspection regime? Regarding technology,
what do electronic monitoring systems look for and what is the
range of capacities on the different cruise ships owned by
different companies? What percentage of cruise ships in Alaska
currently have electronic monitoring? To what extent could they
report to a contractor like the Marine Exchange of Alaska and
how long would that transition take? If the submission of
discharge reports is not monthly, what is the appropriate
frequency of the submissions? Should there be sideboards on the
percentage of user fees invested in onboard inspections versus
onshore infrastructure investments?
4:17:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY added the question: What are best
practices followed in other ports?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked about the penalty for a violation.
MS. POKON answered that it varies depending on the violation and
on whether it falls under EPA policy or Alaska statute. She
said that as an example, the Glacier Bay incident generated a
$17,000-$18,000 penalty for the state violations.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what the penalties were for the six
violations discovered by the Ocean Rangers.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied that DEC would provide that
information.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Section 13 of the proposed
legislation and asked why the "Recognition Program" in AS
46.03.485 would be repealed. It read:
The department may engage in efforts to encourage and
recognize superior environmental protection efforts
made by the owners or operators of commercial
passenger vessels that exceed the requirements
established by law.
MS. POKON responded that DEC has not had the funding or capacity
to do anything explicitly. The department can always
acknowledge good environmental performance by any of its
permittees, but in recent years DEC has not taken the time to do
so for cruise ships.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS summarized as follows: DEC has not
engaged in this activity in the past, it does not need a law
permitting it to do so, and CDHB 74 would take it out of statute
to "tighten up the law."
MS. POKON agreed.
4:20:59 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the proposed repeal of two
definitions under AS 46.03.490. He asked why the definition for
"untreated sewage" - in paragraph (15) - would be repealed.
MS. POKON pointed out that there is a definition for "treated
sewage" in paragraph (14); therefore, the definition for
untreated sewage is superfluous. Removal of the definition was
a recommendation from Legislative Legal Services. She added
that under the proposed legislation, the definition in paragraph
(1) - "agent for service of process" - would be repealed because
the term is no longer in existing statute.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS restated that both definition repeals
are effectively conforming changes.
MS. POKON agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that she supports Section 12 of
the proposed legislation, which adds support for the shore-based
treatment facilities. She expressed her appreciation that the
proposed legislation would continue to maintain the regulations
that were previously under the Ocean Ranger Program and
additionally provide a means for shore-based communities to
upgrade their systems for future generations. Although Homer
has a modern water and sewage treatment plant, it was able to
install restrooms downtown with the funds received from the
cruise ship industry.
4:24:16 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS questioned the repeal of AS 46.03.462 -
"Terms and conditions of discharge permits" - proposed in the
legislation. He asked whether there would be an equivalent
reenactment.
MS. POKON offered that the broad language proposed under Section
2 of CSHB 74, which repeals and reenacts AS 46.03.463 -
"Prohibited discharges", would authorize DEC to put into
regulation the comparable provisions that are currently in AS
46.03.462.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation that Section 2
repeals and reenacts AS 46.03.463 and to some extent, AS
46.03.462.
MS. POKON concurred.
4:26:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that CSHB 74 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 74 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. S 2.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 Work Draft CS ver. S Sectional Analysis version 2.10.20.PDF |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 Draft Fiscal Note DEC-EH 02.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 CS Draft Fiscal Note DEC-AQ 02.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 CS Draft Fiscal Note DEC-DAS 02.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 CS Draft Fiscal Note DEC-SSS 02.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 CS Draft Fiscal Note DEC-WIF 02.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 74 HSTA CS Presentation - DEC 2.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 74 |
| HB 182 Work Draft Committee Substitute v. U 2.10.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 182 |
| HB 182 Letter of Support - Providence 1.31.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 182 |
| HB 182 Letter of Support - Testimony 2.5.20.pdf |
HSTA 2/11/2020 3:00:00 PM |
HB 182 |