Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 06:58 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 27, 2001
6:58 PM
TAPE HFC 01 - 103, Side A
TAPE HFC 01 - 103, Side B
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Mulder called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 6:58 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eldon Mulder, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Con Bunde, Vice-Chair
Representative Eric Croft
Representative John Davies
Representative Richard Foster
Representative John Harris
Representative Ken Lancaster
Representative Jim Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Hudson
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula; Gretchen Kaiser, Staff,
Representative Kertulla; Robert Reges, Cruise Control Inc.,
Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
There were no teleconference participants.
SUMMARY
HB 260 "An Act requiring the owners or operators of
certain passenger vessels operating in the marine
waters of the state to register the vessels;
establishing information-gathering, record
keeping, and reporting requirements relating to
the vessels' graywater and sewage; prohibiting the
discharge of untreated sewage from the vessels
unless exempted; placing limits on discharges of
treated sewage and graywater from the vessels
unless exempted; establishing a commercial
passenger vessel coastal protection fund;
establishing a fee on commercial passenger
vessels, that are not exempt from the fee, for
each voyage during which the vessels operate in
the marine waters of the state based on the
overnight accommodation capacity of the vessels
determined with reference to the number of lower
berths; establishing penalties for failure to
comply with certain laws relating to the vessels;
authorizing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to encourage and recognize superior
environmental protection efforts related to
commercial passenger vessels; authorizing
exemptions from some laws relating to discharges
from the vessels and from the fee requirements
related to the vessels; requiring a report from
the Department of Environmental Conservation
concerning matters relating to the vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
HB 260 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act requiring the owners or operators of certain
passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of the
state to register the vessels; establishing
information-gathering, record keeping, and reporting
requirements relating to the vessels' graywater and
sewage; prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage
from the vessels unless exempted; placing limits on
discharges of treated sewage and graywater from the
vessels unless exempted; establishing a commercial
passenger vessel coastal protection fund; establishing
a fee on commercial passenger vessels, that are not
exempt from the fee, for each voyage during which the
vessels operate in the marine waters of the state based
on the overnight accommodation capacity of the vessels
determined with reference to the number of lower
berths; establishing penalties for failure to comply
with certain laws relating to the vessels; authorizing
the Department of Environmental Conservation to
encourage and recognize superior environmental
protection efforts related to commercial passenger
vessels; authorizing exemptions from some laws relating
to discharges from the vessels and from the fee
requirements related to the vessels; requiring a report
from the Department of Environmental Conservation
concerning matters relating to the vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the Committee would entertain
amendments.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on
file.) Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Croft spoke in support of Amendment 1. He
explained that the amendment would add findings contained in
HB 183. He argued that more needed to be put on record
regarding the factual findings of the Legislature relating
to Alaskan water.
Co-Chair Mulder spoke against the amendment. He maintained
that the findings are succinct and adequate.
Representative John Davies spoke in support of the amendment
and pointed out that the findings in HB 260 do not give
direct reasons for the legislation.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Bunde, Foster,
Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy
on file.) Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative John Davies argued in support. He observed
that the amendment would add a number of permits to the
legislation. He stressed the ability of getting people's
attention and maintained that the amendment would provide
the proper hammer to make sure that industry follows along.
Co-Chair Mulder argued that public publicity provides strong
incentives to not violate the provisions. He added that the
legislation has sufficient enforcement and noted that the
Department of Law has the ability to prohibit a "bad actor"
from returning to the state of Alaska. He maintained that
the amendment would result in a "death sentence" (to the
legislation).
Representative Davies did not think the penalties were
sufficient to affect the industry. Co-Chair Mulder stressed
that there is a strong disincentive to commit offences since
a single bad incident would attract negative publicity.
In response to a question by Representative Whitaker, Co-
Chair Mulder clarified that page 12, section 4; lines 6 - 15
pertain to the $100 thousand dollar fine. Representative
John Davies pointed out that the fine is a maximum of a $100
thousand dollars.
Representative Whitaker summarized that there would be a
$100 thousand dollars for the initial violation. Violators
of AS 46.14 would be liable, "to the state for a sum to be
assessed by the court of not less than $500 nor more than
$100,000 for the initial violation, nor more than $10,000
for each day after that on which the violation continues,
and that shall reflect, when applicable".
Co-Chair Mulder argued that there would additional penalties
for the "reasonable compensation in the nature of liquidated
damages for any adverse environmental effects caused by the
violation" He reiterated that there is a strong financial
disincentive.
Mr. Regis clarified that any given penalty would be up to
$100 thousand dollars. Multiple violations and adverse
environmental affects could be demonstrated to increase the
amount from the minimum of $500 hundred dollars. It might be
possible to demonstrate multiple violations. Representative
Croft summarized that adverse environmental affects caused
by a single violation in the amount of $250 thousand dollars
would result in no more than a $100 thousand dollar penalty.
Representative John Davies questioned if there would be
additional penalties if the violation continued for 10 days.
Mr. Regis noted that the initial violation would b $100
thousand dollars. Each additional day would result in an
additional $10 thousand dollar penalty. He stressed that as
a practical matter huge penalties are not granted and gave
examples of previous litigation. He observed that resource
violations might result in greater penalties.
Representative Whitaker expressed support for a higher fine
of not more than $500 thousand dollars and not more than $50
thousand dollars for each additional day.
Mr. Regis explained that the section does not only apply to
cruise vessels. If the provision is changed it is changed
for all Alaskan businesses.
Representative John Davies asked what the appropriate
sanction should be. Mr. Regis maintained that access should
be denied to the court. He spoke in support of an
administrative penalty, which was included in HB 22.
Administrative sanctions are immediate and give operators
the opportunity to fix problems. He emphasized that the
penalty provision requires litigation and is rarely used. He
noted that there are pros and cons to a permit system.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Davies
OPPOSED: Croft, Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Bunde, Foster,
Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (1-8).
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3:
(c) Except as provided in (f) of this section,
AS 46.03.488, or other applicable law or regulation,
beginning January 1, 2003, a person may not discharge
graywater from a commercial passenger vessel into the
marine waters of the state that has a fecal coliform
bacterial count greater than 200 colonies per 100
milliliters or suspended solids greater than 150
milligrams per liter.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4. He
explained that the amendment would take out the language
"upon request" in regards to information gathering
requirements and add "offloading or release of a pollutant".
Co-Chair Mulder maintained that pollutants are already
reported under RCRA. He observed that the key issue is the
exchange of information and indicated that he would work on
an amendment to encourage the transference of information.
Representative John Davies argued that the state needs an
independent authority to have the information.
Representative John Davies WITHDREW Amendment 4.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5. Co-Chair
Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Croft spoke in support of Amendment 5:
Page 5 lines 9 through 10:
State, the owner or operator of the vessel shall
collect samples of the vessel's pollutant discharges
[TREATED SEWAGE AND GRAYWATER THAT IS BEING DISCHARGED]
into the marine waters of the state
Page 5 line 21
At a sampling frequency determined in regulations under
AS 46.03.489 by the department [NO LESS FREQUENTLY THAN
SAMPLES ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAWS
AND REGULATIONS FOR TREATED SEWAGE OR GRAYWATER
DISCHARGES].
Page 5 lines 25 through 30:
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD, [AND] total suspended
solids, and priority pollutants, as defined in the
federal laws and regulations, in the samples with an
analytical testing method that was approved by the
department before the testing is conducted. [A
LABORATORY USED FOR TESTING UNDER THIS SUBSECTION MAY
NOT DISCLOSE THE TESTING RESULTS TO ANY PERSON OTHER
THAN THE DEPARTMENT, THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, OR
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE VESSEL.]
He explained that the amendment would address the issue of
pollutant discharges in substitution of treated sewage and
graywater.
Co-Chair Mulder argued that the focus of the bill is the
discharge of wastewater into state waters and that the
amendment is beyond the focus of HB 260.
Representative John Davies observed that there are separate
discharge streams on some ships that are not covered. There
is a possibility of heavy metals and other organics being
discharged directly into the waters.
Co-Chair Mulder disagreed. He thought that discharges would
go through the wastewater process. He emphasized that the
inclusion of pollutant discharges go beyond the discharge of
wastewaters. He added that they are covered under RCRA.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
5.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies, Whitaker
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Bunde, Foster, Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6: There
is no audit report privilege under AS 09.24.460 for this
information. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7 (copy on
file.) Co-Chair Mulder OBJECTED.
Representative Croft explained Amendment 7.
INSERT:
Sec. 46.03.477. Monitoring and environmental studies.
The department may engage in the following activities
for commercial passenger vessels:
(1) direct monitoring of discharges or releases of
pollutants from those vessels;
(2) monitoring and studying of direct or indirect
environmental impacts of those vessels; (3) researching
ways to reduce impacts identified or studied under this
section.
Representative Croft noted that the amendment would give the
Department of Environmental Conservation the authority to
sample. The issue is whether the industry should self-
monitor.
Co-Chair Mulder argued against passage of the amendment. He
maintained that the Department of Environmental Conservation
could use their inspection ability to beat up the industry.
Representative John Davies maintained that there is no way
to use the amendment as a heavy-handed tool if the law is
not being broken.
Co-Chair Mulder felt that the issue was the presumption of
guilt or innocence. Representative John Davies stressed the
need to independently monitor releases.
Representative Croft pointed out that a physical inspection
brought the suit against the Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines.
Co-Chair Mulder argued that if there were a reason to
suspect that there is something wrong that there would be an
ability to do an inspection.
Representative John Davies questioned why the department
would not be given the authority to measure what is going
on. Co-Chair Mulder observed that they could do monitoring
but that funding would not be provided by the state.
Representative Davies stressed that it takes money do a
monitoring program.
Representative Croft did not feel that the provision would
be onerous. He maintained that monitoring is an essential
part of making sure discharges are not improper and stressed
that it should be paid by the fees. Representative Whitaker
argued that there would be redundancy and a bureaucracy
would be built, whose only goal would be to find something
wrong with the industry.
Representative Croft pointed out that on page 10 the
Department of Environmental Conservation only has authority
to adopt regulations to implement exemptions. Co-Chair
Mulder acknowledged the problem and noted that it would be
addressed.
Representative John Davies noted that other industries have
a fee structure for monitoring as part of the permit
process. He suggested a 50/50 fee basis, but did not know
the costs involved. He acknowledged that the department has
the general authority to monitor, but stressed the need for
funding. The majority of the Department of Environmental
Conservation's funding is federal, which comes with
limitations. Co-Chair Mulder thought that there was already
third party monitoring under the U.S. Coast Guard.
MICHAEL A. CONWAY, DIVISION OF AIR AND WATER QUALITY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION responded to
questions. He noted that the agency needs the ability to do
spot checks or look at ships were the analysis reports
indicate that something is wrong. The state of Alaska does
not currently have the authority to board a vessel even if
they suspect that something is wrong. The department works
with the Coast Guard with the permission of the
owner/operator. Monitoring of direct or indirect
environmental impacts would be done through a third party
process. Fiscal notes on previous bills showed the cost for
third party contractors. The Department of Environmental
Conservation has committed to not duplicating efforts of the
federal government or Coast Guard. There is not funding or
expertise to research ways to reduce impacts or to do
technical reviews.
Vice-Chair Bunde noted that law enforcement has fines.
Representative John Davies pointed out that there is always
a danger and there is a need to have police. The state needs
the authority to get the information. Co-Chair Mulder
emphasized that it is a philosophical issue on how "heavy
handed" government would be allowed to become.
Representative Davies argued in support of state oversight.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Bunde, Foster,
Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Representative John Davies WITHDREW Amendment 8.
TAPE HFC 01 - 103, Side B
Representative Croft WITHDREW Amendment 9.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10:
Sec. 46.03.489. Regulations. The department may adopt
regulations that are necessary for the implementation
of AS 46.03.460 - 46.03.490. The department shall use
negotiated regulation making under AS 44.62.710 -
44.62.800, as appropriate, to develop the regulations.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 11:
(6) "graywater" means galley, dishwater, bath, and
laundry wastewater;
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 12:
(2) "commercial passenger vessel" means a vessel that
carries passengers for hire except that "commercial
passenger vessel" does not include a vessel
(A) authorized to carry fewer than 50 passengers;
(B) that does not provide overnight accommodations
for at least 50 passengers for hire; or
(C) operated by the United States or a foreign
government;
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13. Co-Chair
Mulder OBJECTED.
Page 10, following line 24:
INSERT: "offloading" means the removal of pollutants
from a commercial passenger vessel onto or into a
controlled storage, processing, or disposal facility or
treatment works;
Representative Croft spoke in support of the amendment. Co-
Chair Mulder felt that it was a duplication of effort and
not necessary.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Bunde, Foster,
Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Amendments 14 and 15 were held.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 16.
Page 15, lines 12 through 19:
The report must include
(1) a characterization, to the extent possible, of the
risks to the marine and human environments posed by
releases and offloadings [THE DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE
AND GRAYWATER] from commercial passenger vessels;
(2) evaluation of the pollution control and abatement
[SEWAGE AND GRAYWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND]
technologies on the vessels; and
(3) recommendations for future action by the state in
relation to the matters discussed in the report.
Representative Kertulla spoke in support of the amendment.
She noted that the industry currently does pollution control
and abatement. She stressed that it would be nice to
evaluate these activities to know what kind of controls are
necessary. She emphasized that the amendment does not go
back in to the bill in terms of substance. It would be a
separate report on things that the industry currently does.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned why the industry would be
required to issue reports about the risks to the marine and
human environment posed by the release and offloading as
opposed to the discharge of sewage and graywater. The
legislation is about the water not the pollutants and off
loadings or pollution control and abatement.
Representative Kertulla emphasized that the amendment would
provide a more complete report. The report would provide a
broader picture to see if there is anything else that "you
would like to be controlling". She pointed out that the
report could completely exonerate the industry or point out
a problem. Releases happen with offloading. She did not
think that the industry would oppose the report.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies, Whitaker
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Bunde, Foster, Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Co-Chair Mulder WITHDREW Amendment 17.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 18:
On page 7, following line 26
(d) The fee described in this section may not be
imposed during any calendar year that begins on or
after January 1, 2004, unless the legislature
determines by law that imposition of the fee for that
calendar year is required to pay for the department's
operational and administrative costs necessary to carry
out activities under AS 46.03.460 - 46.03.490 and under
department regulations establishing standards for
marine vessel visible emissions adopted under AS 46.14.
Page 13, line 24
Delete all material.
(c) The legislature may make appropriations from the
fund to the department to pay for the department's
operational and administrative costs necessary to
prepare a report that assesses the information received
by the department under AS 46.03.475 for the cruise
ship seasons of 2001, 2002, and 2003 and the
information received by the department for the cruise
ship season of 2000 and for the department's
operational and administrative costs necessary to carry
out activities under AS 46.03.460 - 46.03.490 and under
department regulations establishing standards for
marine vessel visible emissions adopted under AS 46.14.
Co-Chair Mulder explained that the amendment removes the
repealler and leaves the fee structure in place in statute.
Justification for the program would be required in the
report. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 18 was adopted.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to ADOPT an amended Amendment 19.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that the allowable counts would be
placed in statute.
Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to AMEND Amendment 19 delete page 4,
line 7. He observed that this language was duplicative.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
He explained that Amendment 19 as amended would amend the
legislation to read:
(b) Except as provided in (f) of this section,
AS 46.03.488, or other applicable law or regulation, a
person may not discharge treated sewage from a
commercial passenger vessel into the marine waters of
the state that has a fecal coliform bacterial count
greater than 200 colonies per 100 milliliters or
suspended solids greater than 150 milligrams per liter.
(c) Except as provided in (f) of this section,
AS 46.03.488, or other applicable law or regulation,
beginning January 1, 2003, a person may not discharge
graywater from a commercial passenger vessel into the
marine waters of the state that has a fecal coliform
bacterial count greater than 200 colonies per 100
milliliters or suspended solids greater than 150
milligrams per liter.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 19 was adopted.
Representative Croft MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 20. Co-Chair
Mulder OBJECTED. Representative Croft noted that the
amendment would broaden the title to "An Act relating to
certain passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of
the state; and providing for an effective date".
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Lancaster, Whitaker, Bunde, Foster,
Williams, Mulder
Representatives Moses and Hudson were absent from the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-7).
Co-Chair Mulder noted that work would continue on the
exemption for smaller vessels.
HB 260 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|