Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 17
01/26/2017 01:30 PM House TRANSPORTATION
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 | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 51-SMALL VESSEL WASTEWATER EXEMPTION
1:33:53 PM
CO-CHAIR STUTES announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 51, "An Act relating to the regulation of
wastewater discharge from small commercial passenger vessels in
state waters; and providing for an effective date."
1:34:09 PM
MATT GRUENING, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 51 on behalf of Representative Stutes,
prime sponsor. Mr. Gruening read from the sponsor statement
included in the committee packet, which read as follows:
House Bill 51 would reinstate statutes that
exempt the state ferries and other small passenger
vessels from large cruise ship wastewater discharge
requirements, instead allowing them to discharge
wastewater under Best Management Practices (BMP)
plans.
Alaska Statutes require commercial passenger
vessels to have a permit from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) to discharge
wastewater into waters of the state. The effluent
limits in the permit are to be based on levels of
treatment that can be achieved using an advanced
wastewater treatment system (AWTS).
An exemption in the statute was made for smaller
ships including the state ferries in recognition
of the problems they would have installing AWTS on
board their smaller vessels.
Alternative measures designed to protect Alaska waters
and fish, primarily through the employment BMP plans
and designation of no-discharge areas, were imposed on
these vessels. The intent of the BMP plans is for the
vessels to continually improve their wastewater
performance. Sampling, monitoring and compliance
assistance along with BMP review and approval has
generated improved operation of these systems since
the program's inception.
The exemption language in the statute expired on
January 1, 2016 leaving the small vessels without a
viable means to comply with the statutory permitting
provisions. This bill would restore the statutory
exemption along with DEC's authority to require the
alternative requirements such as BMP for the smaller
vessels.
Without the changes in the proposed bill, state
ferries and small cruise ships would have to install
AWTS technology, which would be cost and space
prohibitive. Additionally, most small cruise ships and
state ferries lack available space and weight capacity
to install AWTS, creating potential stability issues.
DOT&PF estimates the cost to retrofit ferries is over
$5 million.
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), testified in support of HB 51. He said that
the BMP plan has been used for small commercial passenger
vessels for over 10 years and that there has been significant
improvement in the quality of wastewater from the vessels.
Commissioner Hartig offered his belief that the BMP plan has
worked really well in terms of protecting the environment while
simultaneously ensuring the economic viability of Alaska ferries
and small cruise vessels. He stated that HB 51 would return the
regulation to what was in place before the sunset of the
provision in AS 46.03.462(a)(2) that occurred automatically in
2016. Commissioner Hartig explained that the change was not
foreseen and came as a surprise. He further stated that the
department is looking to return to the status quo, which he
opined has been working well.
1:36:22 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG suggested that the key provision in HB 51 is
Section 4. He explained that the language in Section 4, "the
best management practices for protecting the environment to the
maximum extent feasible," is the criteria used to approve a BMP.
He referred to language in Section 4 [beginning on line 6
through line 9] of the bill, which read as follows:
"best management practices" means schedules of
activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance
procedures, and other management practices to prevent
or reduce the pollution of the marine waters of the
state.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG reiterated that this language worked for the
state, the vessels, and the environment before, and the
department urges passage of HB 51.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that small vessels are defined by
Alaska statute as having 50-249 lower berths and that that
definition includes the Alaska state ferries.
1:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired about the difference of language
in subsection (k) for operators of small vessels as "may" verses
the department "shall." He offered his interpretation that
"may" means operators of small commercial vessels don't have to
submit plans for alternative terms if they do not want to. He
suggested that subsection (k) appears to be the "nuts and bolts"
of the bill but lacks any "concept of where they're going on
that." Representative Neuman asked the commissioner to respond.
1:41:00 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that before its sunset AS
46.03.462(a) provided two ways small commercial passenger
vessels could discharge wastewater into marine waters in
compliance with state requirements. Under the first option,
small vessels elect the same permitting process as large cruise
ships and would need an advanced wastewater treatment system
(AWTS). This option exists now and would continue to exist
under HB 51; however small vessel operators are not likely to
opt for it. The proposed legislation would bring back the
second option, which was "sunsetted," and that is for small
vessel operators to submit a best management practice (BMP) to
DEC for approval. He stated that if the plan met the criteria
in Section 4 of the bill, "shall" would direct the department to
approve the plan.
1:42:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested information on the intentions of
the department in implementing these regulations. He stressed
his strong concern for the amount of regulations already in
place.
CO-CHAIR STUTES offered her understanding that the regulations
are already in place.
COMISSIONER HARTIG answered that is correct. He stated that the
department's intention is to reinstate what has previously been
in place for at least the past 10 years and that there is no
need to create any new regulations. Commissioner Hartig offered
the expertise of Mr. White and others in the room from the
department to speak in more detail to how the regulations have
worked in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN raised awareness to the purpose of HB 51
in addressing the "sunsetting" of the regulations last year, and
he asked if there is a sunset date for the proposed legislation.
COMISSIONER HARTIG offered his understanding that the department
does not intend to sunset the proposed legislation. He
explained that the legislation is self-renewing in the sense
that the best [emphasis on "best"] BMP must be in place in order
for the department to approve and the provision allows for the
integration of upgraded technology, as it becomes available.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN clarified his understanding that the
aforementioned scenario would be a regulatory issue and not
something for which the department would have to seek approval
from the legislature every time technology improves.
COMISSIONER HARTIG explained that the department would set
standard, five-year terms on the permits to allow for
improvements in technology.
1:44:42 PM
CO-CHAIR STUTES asked Mr. White to address some of
Representative Neuman's concerns.
BEN WHITE, Program Manager, Cruise Ships Program, Division of
Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained
that 18 AAC 69.046 is the current regulation in place with DEC
that describes requirements for BMP plans; it has been in place
since 2006.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP provided his understanding that HB 51
wouldn't change anything about the regulations and that the
proposed legislation is intended to allow the department to
continue doing business the way it has been in terms of how it
treats commercial passenger vessels below a certain size.
MR. WHITE responded that is correct.
1:46:32 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked why a small passenger vessel would have a
large cruise ship wastewater discharge requirement.
MR. WHITE elucidated that there are currently two options for
wastewater discharge permitting for commercial passenger
vessels: one is through the general permit for large vessels,
which was issued in 2013, and the other is through the exemption
for smaller vessels. He explained that without the small vessel
exemption in existence, the only option would be for all vessels
to go through the same permitting process as large vessels.
CO-CHAIR WOOL offered his understanding, that [without the
exemption for smaller vessels, which would be renewed under HB
51] there is a "one-size-fits-all" requirement that doesn't work
for all vessels.
MR. WHITE confirmed that is correct.
1:48:06 PM
MICHAEL NEUSSL, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Marine Highway
System (AMHS), Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), testified that DOT&PF and AMHS support HB 51. He
explained that HB 51 would reinstate the BMP plan exemption
which is valuable to the AMHS because it allows operations to
continue as they have been without major expense.
MR. NEUSSL, in response to Representative Neuman's earlier
question about the language of "may verses shall," said that
"may" is used because small vessel operators, such as the AMHS,
can choose to use the BMP plan alternative compliance method.
He conveyed that if small vessel operators do not choose to use
the exemption, then the higher standards of the large cruise
ships apply. He reiterated that it is not a requirement for
small commercial passenger vessel operators to apply for the BMP
plan alternative, but that in some cases it's in their best
interest.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered his understanding that small
vessel operators could either decide to upgrade their wastewater
or elect to not upgrade.
MR. NEUSSL answered that is correct. He explained that HB 51
contains two options: the standards that exist for large cruise
ships, which could be complied with by everyone, and the
exemption [for small commercial passenger vessels], which allows
the alternative compliance method of an approved BMP plan, which
HB 51 attempts to reinstate.
1:50:03 PM
CO-CHAIR STUTES inquired about the water quality under the
current BMP plan in comparison to the water quality that comes
from the wastewater facility in Juneau.
MR. NEUSSL illustrated that the discharge standards are not
specified in the BMP portion of the bill and that the goal of
not specifying a limit is to allow for continued improvement.
He said that with each successful upgrade to the marine
sanitation devices, the water quality improves. He deferred Co-
Chair Stutes' question about municipal wastewater treatment
plant discharge standards to DEC.
CO-CHAIR STUTES shared her insight that while the majority of
the ferries in AMHS are old, the wastewater systems onboard are
not antiquated.
MR. NEUSSL confirmed that regardless of what year the vessel was
built, there have been many upgrades to the marine sanitation
devices or wastewater treatment systems. He stated that the
larger vessels in the AMHS fleet - which would be covered under
HB 51 - all had major upgrades to the marine sanitation devices
between 2009 and 2011. He noted the relationship that formed
between departments, as part of the BMP plan, where DOT&PF
worked and trained under the guidance of DEC to improve water
quality discharge standards within the limits of space
feasibility of holding the equipment onboard.
CO-CHAIR STUTES asked what actions AMHS would be required to
take in order to upgrade the wastewater systems equivalent to
that of the 250-plus berth requirements.
1:52:32 PM
MR. NEUSSL explained that the requirement would pertain to four
vessels currently in the fleet and would require an AWTS to be
installed. He stated that the department conducted a study in
2008 on the M/V Taku and found the estimated cost was $1.25
million. He disclosed that the Motor Vessel (M/V) Taku
estimated cost would have to be multiplied four or five times
and then calculated for inflation from 2008 to 2016 dollars in
order to assess the cost of installing an AWTS on all necessary
AMHS vessels. He restated that the expense for the AMHS fleet
to meet the advanced wastewater discharge standards would exceed
$5 million.
CO-CHAIR STUTES requested information on what the available
space requirement would be on the ships.
MR. NEUSSL answered that an AWTS is not only a more complex
marine sanitation device for handling graywater and black water
discharges and processing it accordingly, but is also larger in
size than the existing marine sanitation systems that are
currently onboard the vessels. He further stated that it
remains to be seen if an AWTS would fit into the existing marine
sanitation device spaces or whether modifications would need to
be made. Mr. Neussl disclosed that the department has not
conducted advanced studies of exactly which system would be
placed on which ships or what that would mean in terms of
stability. He added that at this time the department is just
working off estimates from the contractors.
1:54:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP clarified that the exemption in HB 51 would
apply to five state ferries and 10 smaller commercial passenger
vessels with carrying capacities of between 50 and 249. He
raised awareness to a provision in the BMP plan approval that
prohibits discharging in areas designated as refuges,
sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, as defined under AS
16.20, and he mentioned that Cook Inlet is now a critical
habitat for beluga. Representative Kopp expressed concern that
[the no discharge zone provision] may come as a surprise for any
of the aforementioned vessels.
MR. NEUSSL answered that the department is aware of the
prohibited areas and has existing BMP plans that clearly spell
out where the vessels can and cannot discharge. He disclosed
that because of the vessels running to Bellingham, Washington,
the department has been closely watching a recent proposal that
is looking to place the entirety of the Puget Sound in a "no
discharge zone." He said the issue is a matter of whether the
AMHS vessels have the space available to store the wastewater
until a dump zone is reached. He explained that the vessels
discharge far from shore, while underway, so as to ensure
maximum mixing of discharge rather than dumping in areas closer
to shore where the discharge would be more concentrated.
1:56:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated his understanding that one of the
hazards of not renewing the statute would be that small vessel
owners would be forced to update and upgrade their vessel to
have large cruise ship standard wastewater treatment facilities
onboard, which could make the vessel unstable and ultimately
nonfunctional. He stressed that failure to enact this statute
would have negative regulatory effects not only on the AMHS, but
also on existing commercial operators who have been in
compliance over the past decade.
MR. NEUSSL offered his belief that is correct. He said that
there are potentially unintended consequences of that
regulation. He restated that the BMP plan has been in place for
10 years and that during that time the department has worked
closely with DEC and seen significant improvement of its
wastewater discharge quality.
1:58:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether HB 51 would allow "a carve
out for state ferries." He clarified that he was asking whether
the same standards would apply if the fleet were owned privately
and not by the state.
MR. NEUSSL replied that HB 51 would enact a BMP statute that
would require the owner/operator of the vessel, regardless of
whether that is the state or a private operator, to submit a BMP
plan to DEC for approval. He further explained that HB 51 and
the BMP plan exemption is not a specific "carve out" for AMHS.
CO-CHAIR WOOL inquired about which standard would apply to the
two new ferries currently under construction.
MR. NEUSSL answered that the two new Alaska Class Ferries do not
have onboard processing and underway discharge systems, but
instead have hold and pump-ashore capabilities. He explained
that because many of AMHS's smaller ferries - such as the fast
ferries and the Alaska Class Ferries - are day boats or shorter
operating vessels that contain both black and gray water but
have no discharge system, they pump ashore at home port where
the discharge is then piped or trucked to the municipal
wastewater facility.
1:59:44 PM
CO-CHAIR STUTES [moved] to change the sponsorship of HB 51 to
the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:00:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected.
CO-CHAIR STUTES clarified the motion.
2:00:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kopp, Drummond,
Claman, Wool, and Stutes voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Neuman and Sullivan-Leonard voted against it.
Therefore, the motion passed by a vote of 5-2.
[HB 51 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB051 Sponsor Statement 1.24.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Supporting Document-2008 Foss Report on Malaspina MSD Upgrades 1.18.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Fiscal Note DEC-DW 1.22.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Fiscal Note DOT&PF-Commissioner's Office 1.22.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Discharge Volume Comparison Chart 1.21.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Supporting Document-CPVEC BMP Info Sheet 1.18.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Supporting Document-FINAL Small Ship 2016 Sampling Report 1.18.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 Supporting Documents-Small Vessel Discharge Bill FAQs 1.18.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |
| HB051 ver D 1.21.17.pdf |
HTRA 1/26/2017 1:30:00 PM |
HB 51 |