Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
04/10/2009 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing - Judge Karl Johnstone, Board of Fisheries | |
| Overview: Fischer-tropsch Synthetic Fuels Pilot Program | |
| SB177 | |
| SB108 | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 177 | ||
| += | SB 108 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 134 | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CSHB 134(RES)-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
5:12:39 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced CSHB 134(RES) to be up for
consideration. She said they already had public testimony, but
she would open it up briefly to see if people had something
different to say than they said before.
5:13:33 PM
JEFF FARBER, Alaska Long Line Fishing Association (ALFA), Sitka,
had a letter that she asked him to summarize. He supported HB
134. He is a 10-year resident of Sitka and a 20-year commercial
fisherman. He values pristine clear waters that Alaska's fish
are harvested from. They have worked really hard to get that
message out to the public and don't want that message to be
degraded or compromised. They are committed to being good
stewards of Alaska's resources and expect that same commitment
from other users. He supported a sunset on the mixing zones for
cruise ship discharges.
5:15:28 PM
JENNIFER GIBBONS, Executive Director, Prince William Sound
Keepers, and serves on the Board of the Cordova Chamber of
Commerce. She sees this issue from both an environmental
perspective and tourist perspective. They have made good
progress in allowing industry some flexibility with the timeline
and that is both realistic and fair. But that needs to be
balanced with protecting our Alaskan waters by insuring there is
a deadline that will sunset the waivers allowed in Section (e).
They know that both from the technology conference earlier this
year and from DEC's March 2 report that the technology is
advancing, that the deadline has been the driving incentive
behind progress and that it is possible to meet the goal within
the next several years.
5:17:06 PM
CAROLYN ROSEBURY, representing herself, Cordova, urged amending
section (e) to sunset in 3-5 years, because this deadline is the
only incentive for compliance.
ERIC LEON, representing himself, said he is a member of Cordova
District Fishermen United, agreed with previous comments in
support of sunsetting section (e).
STEVE SMITH, Board Member, Cordova District Fishermen United,
supported HB 134 and sunsetting section (e) in 3-5 years.
Everything depends on fishing for him, so the cleanliness of our
waters is paramount.
JOHN FALKNER, representing himself, Homer, supported passing
CSHB 134(RES) without the sunset amendment. He operates three
hotel properties on the Kenai Peninsula, and has worked hard to
develop ground-based motor coach tours with the cruise companies
there. They are very price-sensitive and are the first things
visitors cancel when the price of their trip increases. In 2009
he had 600 more room cancelations than in 2008. More
importantly, he said the entire Clean Water Initiative should be
under review by this committee, because the process was "flawed
to the core."
5:20:47 PM
He is totally ignorant of chemicals and mixing zones, and his
research shows that those who voted for this initiative had no
idea what they were voting on. Secondly, how can an initiative
be considered valid if what the initiative implements is
unachievable?
5:21:36 PM
DON HERNANDEZ, representing himself, Petersburg, said he had
been a commercial gillnet fisherman in Southeast Alaska for 27
years and very much opposed allowing mixing zones in its waters.
He supported the sunset section (e) in 3-5 years and monitoring
at the point of release.
He has three major concerns: one is that he fishes in waters
where cruise ships are transiting. So he is concerned with how
their discharges affect his nets, with how they pollute our
waters and they affect public perception in the marketplace of
how pristine our waters are.
5:22:58 PM
PAULA TERREL, Alaska Trollers Association, said she and her
husband had been commercial fisherman in Southeast Alaska for 30
years. She complimented everyone on the compromise in HB 134,
but, she said, section (e) on the mixing zone waivers needs a
sunset. She said if the industry for some reason can't implement
the technology, the sunset provision could be extended or
removed later, but for now there needs to be a level playing
field.
5:24:45 PM
KARLA HART, representing herself, Juneau, asked to give the
industry no more than seven years from the date the Alaska
voters passed the cruise ship initiative for compliance. The
cruise industry excels at marketing and public relations, and
the will use the economic crisis and its impact on tourism to
give them added leverage in asking to roll back elements of the
voter-approved initiative.
She has worked around Alaska tourism since the 1960s; she served
on the Alaska Tourism Marketing Council in the 1990s and
regularly follows the cruise industry and Alaska tourism as a
matter of interest. Although there appear to be quite a few
cruise industry players in Alaska, it boils down to three; of
those, Carnival Corporation has about two-thirds of the ships
operating under the Princess, Holland America and Carnival
brands. Carnival is a publicly traded company; and this is one
company that has the resources to actually get this technology.
Carnival's 2008 annual report indicated that globally they have
$33 billion in assets, 88 ships, capacity of 170,000 passengers,
86,000 employees; they transport over 8 million passengers with
revenues of $14.5 billion, and have a net income of $2.3
billion. They have over $9 billion of vessels on order as they
"continue to grow their global footprint" as they say. Alaska
voters said they don't want that global footprint rimmed with
sewer sludge and toxic waste. Cruise lines have the resources to
address this but they lack the will. Their 2008 report said they
are improving fuel efficiencies, reducing their carbon footprint
and helping their bottom line. The problem is that meeting clean
water standards does not improve the corporate bottom line.
She stated that Mick Aaronson, Carnival's, largest single
shareholder, recently announced pulling a ship from Alaska in
2010 due to the $50/head tax also included in this voter
initiative. She believes this is part of their announced cost-
cutting measures that include leveraging all ships for
purchasing and negotiating contracts in Alaska. It's a game of
strategy and strategic investment. If he took all of his ships
and went home, Alaska tourism would survive. There would be a
crisis for the businesses that have become dependent on cruise
lines, but there would also be an opportunity to restructure
Alaska tourism from current monopolistic foreign controlled
tourism to a diverse resilient locally owned and controlled
tourism economy.
5:28:02 PM
JOHN BINKLEY, President, Alaska Cruise Association, said the
volumes the cruise ships discharge is relatively low compared to
municipal systems. The ships are not in a line and discharging
in spurts one after the other. They discharge continually
whether at dock or under way; as they produce the clean water it
is discharged from the ship. Because it is extremely clean it is
allowed to discharge continuously with a few exceptions, one
being Glacier Bay.
An EPA study indicated that an average ship discharges about
143,000 gallons per 24-hour period -compare that to communities
like Juneau that discharges over 9 million gallons in a 24-hour
period. It would take 53 cruise ships parked in Gastineau
Channel to equal what Juneau puts into the channel in one day.
MR. BINKLEY said copper is another item of concern and cruise
ships under the existing regulations produce far less than
communities in Southeast or Southcentral Alaska. The amount of
copper in parts per billion is much lower in any given gallon
that goes out and the gallons are far lower.
It's disconcerting to him to hear so much concern from the
fishing industry, because it is very important to the visitor
industry and cruise ships specifically to maintain clean
pristine waters, not only for Alaska, but for the world. That is
the livelihood of the ships, and if they don't maintain that
they are out of business, just like those in the fishing
industry.
He said they take great pride in bringing visitors to Alaska to
promote wild clean Alaska seafood. Many cruise lines buy
millions of dollars of seafood and promote it so that people who
go home have a desire to continue to buy Alaskan seafood. He
said it's simply not true that cruise ships are polluting the
waters of Alaska.
5:31:51 PM
Further, Mr. Binkley said that sunsetting provision (e) will
have the exact opposite effect. Industry has already invested
over $200 million complying with the initiative would have no
further incentive to invest if a set standard is not attainable.
Instead they investment in getting around Alaska regulations by
holding more waste water, altering itineraries to discharge in
waters beyond Alaska and simply ignoring the permitting system
that Alaska has in place. He opposed the amendment and supported
allowing the compromise to go through as it is, so the industry
can continue to work with the regulators to improve their
existing systems.
5:33:20 PM
GERSHON COHEN, Campaign to Safeguard America's Waters (CSAW),
said he is one of the sponsors of the cruise ship ballot
initiative, Haines, and he studied the issue of mixing zones for
nearly 20 years. At the last hearing there was a lot of talk
about the mechanics of mixing zones - how much pollution can be
absorbed, how big a mixing zone should be, who has mixing zones,
the impacts, et cetera. Unfortunately, most of these questions
cannot be answered with any certainty, because mixing zones are
not a matter of science where you control a set of conditions,
change one thing and make observations.
Mixing zones are a risk analysis with a laundry list of
variables. For each ship and course setting you need to know the
size of the mixing zone, the rate of the discharge, the speed
and design of the ship, the water body depth, temperature,
salinity and topography, the number of ships discharging in the
same area, the chemical relationships between multiple
pollutants, detailed profiles of local biota in terms of
tolerance potential for avoidance and proximity to a ship,
whether someone is harvesting and consuming contaminated
organisms, how the food will be prepared, and on and on. DEC has
never to his knowledge answered most of these questions when
approving a mixing zone nor does it routinely measure pollutants
at the boundaries of a mixing zone or the impacts within it.
The bottom line is the benefits of mixing zones are received by
the polluter; but the risks are borne by the public. He said
it's not true that this bill is an acceptable compromise to all
parties. The point of discharge phrase was reinserted, but the
original concept has been replaced with a temporary waiver
provision and no sunset date. In practical terms, without a
deadline there is no incentive for the rest of the ships to
improve performance.
Contrary to what was said a few moments ago, nearly one-third of
last summer's sampling events demonstrated ships can meet the
so-called impossible standards. DEC has documented that the
technologies exist to meet the water quality standards, although
some need to be reconfigured to fit on a ship.
MR. COHEN concluded that he thought a compromise and the
fundamental principal of the bill can be reached if it contains
a reasonable sunset of the temporary waiver provision. Then the
sponsors of the cruise initiative will support the bill.
5:36:43 PM
ROD PFLEIGER, Manager, Membership and Community Relations,
Alaska Cruise Association, said the complications of a sunset to
an ongoing business for planning purposes and itineraries will
continue to add a negative impact on the family businesses
throughout the state. Forty-five communities, including
governmental agencies, the Alaska Municipal League, the
Southeast Conference, and approximately 30 other organizations
represented by communities from chambers and visitors bureaus,
throughout the state have agreed on CSHB 134(RES) without a
sunset clause for (e).
5:38:35 PM
TAMMY GRIFFIN, Alaska Hotel Lodging Association, said she is a
director of operations for a hotel management company that has
eight hotels in Alaska. She is a life-long Alaskan and cares
about keeping the tourism industry healthy. She is having a very
difficult time understand why they are not allowing the
regulatory agency, DEC, to manage such things. Why let a ballot
initiative create laws when DEC manages from a scientific point
of view? It is not a mere threat that ships can be leaving
Alaska because the return on investment is not making sense. She
supported CSHB 134(RES) without the sunsetting provision (e).
TIM JUNE, representing himself, Haines, AK, said he was
originally on the cruise ship initiative committee and has been
a member of two Governor's Water Quality Task Forces, has been a
commercial fisherman for 25 years in Southeast Alaska, and was a
2001 special assistant to Governor Knowles for Oceans and
Watersheds. He encouraged the committee to respect the voter
initiative that passed by 58 percent, but more significantly it
passed with one side spending$8,000 while the cruise industry
spent $1.4 million. There is tremendous passion behind passing
this initiative.
He addressed the issue of copper, specifically, saying the
aquatic life standard for copper is 2.9 parts per billion. It is
significant in that a 2001 study showed that cruise ships were
putting about 7100 parts per billion before treatment at the
high end, for an average of 850 parts per billion. The point is
that copper "totally screws up" a salmon's olfactory senses and
their ability to come back to where they were born and to ward
of predators. The presence of high copper levels is very
significant and they should not let it be discharged into a
mixing zone.
MR. JUNE reminded them that these ships are mobile dischargers,
they are not like a town or city where they know what the
discharge point is. They discharge commonly in waters that are
frequented by sensitive life cycle of salmon fry that are even
more sensitive to copper.
He said they can use the existing DEC variance position until
this technology is available to ships. It is available to land-
based systems now. They have ways to get rid of the metals and
the ammonia, but it has to be adapted to the ship. It is good
for the DEC to work with the industry and the sunset clause is
very important to do that.
In closing, he reminded the committee that this industry has
been very successful in terms of major campaign contributions
and has access to the legislature.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE responded that many people who have testified
here on this subject also have offered campaign donations, and
they appreciate his testimony.
5:44:58 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt Amendment 1 identified as
26-LS0570\W.3.
26-LS0570\W.3
Bullard
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY THE SENATE RESOURCES
COMMITTEE
TO: CSHB 134(RES), Draft Version "W"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "if the"
Insert ". The"
Page 1, lines 12 - 14:
Delete ", in consultation with its science
advisory panel on wastewater treatment, determines
that compliance with those limits or standards is the
most technologically effective and economically
feasible"
Insert "shall establish and consult with a
science advisory panel on wastewater treatment to
evaluate the most technologically effective and
economically feasible treatment options."
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 46.03.462(b), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, is amended to read:
(b) The minimum standard terms and conditions
for all discharge permits authorized under this
section require that the owner or operator
(1) may not discharge untreated sewage,
treated sewage, graywater, or other wastewaters in a
manner that violates any applicable effluent limits or
standards under state or federal law, including Alaska
Water Quality Standards governing pollution at the
point of discharge [, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN (e) OF
THIS SECTION];
(2) shall maintain records and provide the
reports required under AS 46.03.465(a);
(3) shall collect and test samples as
required under AS 46.03.465(b) and (d) and provide the
reports with respect those samples required by
AS 46.03.475(c);
(4) shall report discharges in accordance
with AS 46.03.475(a);
(5) shall allow the department access to
the vessel at the time samples are taken under
AS 46.03.465 for purposes of taking the samples or for
purposes of verifying the integrity of the sampling
process; and
(6) shall submit records, notices, and
reports to the department in accordance with
AS 46.03.475(b), (d), and (e)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "2014"
Insert "2015"
Page 4, line 17: It will be difficult because
Delete "2014"
Insert "2015"
Page 4, line 26:
Delete "AS 46.03.464 is"
Insert "AS 46.03.462(e), 46.03.462(f), and
46.03.464 are"
Page 4, line 27:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 8. Sections 3 and 7 of this Act take effect
January 1, 2015."
Page 4, line 28:
Delete "Sections 1 through 5 of this Act take"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 8 of this Act,
this Act takes"
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE objected.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he thought this would be a one-line
amendment, but it's two-pages. This is a major policy decision;
and they need to remember people voted overwhelmingly. This is a
compromise to accommodate the industry by adding six years to
comply, and they have already had three. This sunset clause will
give them nine years to comply from the time voters voted on it.
The initiative sponsors support it, the sponsor supports it, and
he has been told the Governor supported it at her press
conference today.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Affairs
Agency, explained the amendment substantially changes the intent
language that prefaces the W version of this bill. Page 1, line
13, of the amendment provides what AS 46.03.462(b) will look
like once January 1, 2015 rolls around. The rest of the
amendment beginning on page 2, line 14, is conforming language
that changes some of the sections dealing with the Science
Advisory Committee, making their last report in 2016. On line 22
the amendment repeals AS 46.03.462(f) and AS 46.03.464 all in
2015. He offered to answer questions.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how all of those are repealed in 2015,
specifically language on page 2, lines 22-24.
MR. BULLARD directed him to page 4, line 26, of the version W
where section 6 provides that AS 46.03.464 is repealed. This is
the section dealing with the Science Advisory Panel. The
amendment amends AS 46.03.462(e) and (f); those are the
exceptions. Another subsection provides for how the exception to
the water discharge standards at point of discharge work.
Section 7 provides that all of this will take effect as amended
in 2015.
5:50:10 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced an at ease.
5:50:22 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE called the meeting back to order at 5:50.
SENATOR FRENCH said as Mr. Bullard was reaching the end of his
description, he had trouble tracking exactly how the repeal
works, and specifically referenced page 4, line 26, [CSHB
134(RES) version W] that says "AS 46.03.464 is repealed," but it
gives no date.
MR. BULLARD explained that the next line of the bill provides
when that section takes effect.
SENATOR FRENCH said he got it now. It's the same mechanism for
inserting the sunset.
MR. BULLARD answered yes. That large block at the beginning of
the amendment on page 1, line 13 through page 2, line 10,
provides that would occur at the moment those sections are
repealed, which brings that provision back into line as it
existed before the effective date of this act.
SENATOR FRENCH thanked him.
5:52:28 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS admitted that he didn't vote for this
initiative; it makes him uncomfortable when they do things to
the other guy - Juneau has one standard and we have another
standard for those who come to visit us if they are riding on a
cruise ship. Everyone wants pristine waters; and it disappoints
him that fishermen want a different standard for cruise ships.
It's a double standard and society has said over and over again
"equal opportunity, equal standards for equal people." But he
would reluctantly support the amendment, because it's important
to move the bill along.
5:54:57 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE added that their job as policy makers is to
balance development, the management of the state's resources,
the economy, the jobs and all of the things out there. She is
also troubled by the prevailing theme in Alaska in the last five
years that is anti-industry and anti those who want to spend
money and invest in this state. "We do want business," and these
cruise ships bring between almost one million people to visit.
Jobs throughout Alaska are 100 percent dependent on their
participation in its economy. The state is going to see a 40
percent decline in the tourism industry, bankruptcies and
businesses closing. Part of it is due to the economy and part is
due to the direct impact of the decisions that the cruise ship
industry has made with respect to investment in this state. This
is the place to argue about it.
She agreed with Senator Huggins that she values the pristine
waters of our state, but they need to be very careful when they
start to impose standards that are not only different and
distinct, but technologically impossible. She would not be
supporting the amendment, but she understands the sentiment with
which it is offered.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI if he wanted to
look at the new version of the amendment.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI responded that his staff put this language
together to help facilitate the dialogue. It places the
amendment into the bill; it is not a different version.
5:57:56 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS clarified that this is a six-year sunset
provision.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI wanted that verified by Mr. Bullard.
MR. BULLARD answered that this amendment moves the sunset date
to January 1, 2015.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Huggins, French, Stevens,
and Wielechowski voted yea; Senator McGuire voted nay; so
Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:59:03 PM
SENATOR FRENCH moved to report CS for HB 134(RES), as amended,
from committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note(s). There being no objection, SCS CSHB 134(RES)
moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Synthetic Fuels Update - April 10 2009.ppt |
SRES 4/10/2009 3:30:00 PM |