Legislature(2017 - 2018)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/09/2017 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB23 | |
| Amendments | |
| HB51 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 9, 2017
1:40 p.m.
1:40:21 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Lisa Weissler, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson; Jane
Pierson, Staff, Representative Neal Foster; Kelly
Cunningham, Analyst, Legislative Finance Division; Matt
Gruening, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes; Michelle
Hale, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Michael Neussl, Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities.
SUMMARY
HB 23 INS. FOR DEPENDS. OF DECEASED FIRE/POLICE
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 51 SMALL VESSEL WASTEWATER EXEMPTION
HB 51 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster discussed the meeting agenda. The committee
would take up the final amendments on HB 23 followed by an
introduction of HB 51.
HOUSE BILL NO. 23
"An Act relating to major medical insurance coverage
under the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Alaska for certain surviving spouses and dependent
children of peace officers and firefighters; and
providing for an effective date."
1:41:07 PM
^AMENDMENTS
1:41:56 PM
Co-Chair Foster thought the amendment process could get
complicated, but the amendments would be rolled into a
clean committee substitute.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been considering
Amendment 13 when the meeting concluded the previous
afternoon [see February 7, 2017 1:32 p.m. minutes for
detail].
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his MOTION to ADOPT
Amendment 13, 30-LS0258\O.20 (Wayne, 2/6/17) (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Foster asked the committee to rescind its action
on Amendment 1.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to RESCIND its action in adopting
Amendment 1.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:43:01 PM
LISA WEISSLER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
explained there was a desire to make the terms in the bill
consistent regarding types of insurance. There was an issue
around the term, "major medical." The term was very
specific and was not intended to be used in the bill. There
were 2 places where there was a reference to insurance. The
first was on Page 3, line 10 and again on line 16 regarding
eligibility requirements. She relayed that a person became
ineligible for premium payments if they were eligible to
receive major medical insurance coverage. In the remainder
of the bill the insurance coverage would be the same
coverage as if the employee was still alive. She referenced
Page 3, line 20. She explained that the use of major
medical narrowed the scope. Using the word "medical" on its
own kept things broader and in line with the intent of the
bill. The intent was a continuation of coverage.
Representative Wilson referenced Page 3, line 10 and asked
if the term "major medical" would remain in the bill. Ms.
Weissler responded that it needed to remain as it was. She
thought it matched up with Tier I major medical benefits.
The remainder of the bill reflected a broader term.
1:46:19 PM
Representative Wilson asked if the state would be paying
the premiums for health insurance until the insured had
other major medical insurance. She wondered if the policy
would have to be greater that what the state was paying
for. Ms. Weissler answered that it would depend on the type
of insurance the deceased had at their time of death. For
instance, a person might have premium coverage which would
continue. Someone else might have economy coverage. She
explained that because of the variation in coverage a
definitive term was needed for the ineligibility criteria.
Representative Wilson provided an example of a Tier IV
police officer killed in the line of duty. Their family
would continue to receive the same coverage until the
spouse had access to the same or a better level of coverage
from their employer. She continued to relay her example and
asked for clarification.
JANE PIERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER, explained
that there were many different policies available to peace
officers. Using the word "medical" insured that the level
of coverage the family members had remained the same.
However, there was a disqualifier for being in the program,
major medical, which could be the same or lesser coverage.
Representative Wilson asked whether Medicaid or Medicare
were considered major medical. She wondered why the
amendment changing from age 65 to a specific program was
offered the prior day. Ms. Pierson responded in the
positive. She relayed that qualifying for Medicare would be
a major medical policy. If the bill passed a person might
not qualify for Medicaid if they had insurance in place.
Representative Wilson voiced concerned with the
terminology. She wanted to make sure survivors were
covered.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was RESCINDED.
1:50:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1a (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page l, line 12:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 1, line 14:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 2:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 20:
Delete "health care"
Insert "medical"
Page 3, line 24:
Delete "health"
Insert "medical"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
1:51:42 PM
AT EASE
1:52:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster summarized that the committee had just
rescinded Amendment 1. Currently, the committee was
considering Amendment 1a. There was an objection. He asked
his staff to walk the committee through the amendment.
Ms. Pierson explained that Amendment 1a replaced health
insurance throughout the bill with medical insurance. It
kept the term the same but was a broader term that
encompassed several different policies that were currently
in effect for a fallen officer. There might be different
policies in effect for different departments.
Representative Wilson thought major medical was higher than
the term medical. She understood that the term "medical"
was a higher standard than "major medical." She approved of
the change.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being further NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1a was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that there had been amendments
that were rolled from the previous meeting that would be
considered next.
Representative Guttenberg MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 13a
(copy on file):
Page 2, lines 2 - 5:
Delete "appropriations designated for state
employees or employees of a small municipality.
The department shall create two separate accounts
in the fund, one account for state employees and
a separate account for employees of a small
municipality"
Insert "other money appropriated to the fund"
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "the state account of'
Page 2, lines 17 - 19:
Delete "and to pay the department's costs
associated with administering the fund. The
commissioner may use money in the small
municipality account of the fund to pay"
Insert ","
Page 2, line 21, following "AS 39.60.040":
Insert ", and the department's costs associated
with administering the fund"
Page 3, lines 29 - 30:
Delete ", and the balance shall be paid from
available funds in the municipal account created
in AS 39.60.0lO(b)"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Guttenberg read the amendment (see
above).
Representative Wilson requested an "at ease."
1:56:15 PM
AT EASE
1:59:16 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster invited an explanation from Ms. Pierson.
Ms. Pierson asked to call Ms. Cunningham to the table.
KELLY CUNNINGHAM, ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
explained that the original purpose of the 2 accounts was
because the bill was set up as an "opt in and opt out." It
was cleaner to have a municipal account and a state account
to keep the funds separate. This bill was mandatory for
municipalities. The fund reflected the state's payments of
50 percent for the small municipalities or a state
employee. There was no need for 2 accounts due to the fact
there would not be an "opt out" option.
Representative Wilson provided a hypothetical scenario
asking for additional clarity about money going into only 1
fund. Ms. Cunningham responded using Representative
Wilson's example that for the Fairbanks officer the borough
would pay directly to the insurer. No money would flow
through the fund. Whereas, a small municipality like North
Pole would pay 50 percent directly to the insurer and the
state would pay the other 50 percent out of the fund. North
Pole would not be sending its 50 percent through the fund.
Representative Wilson asked if the state would be paying
the other 50 percent directly to the insurance company.
There was no pass through involved. Ms. Cunningham replied
in the affirmative.
Representative Pruitt asked Ms. Cunningham if she would
describe the amendment as a clean-up amendment since the
last time the committee was looking at the bill. Ms.
Cunningham asked Representative Pruitt to clarify his
question.
Representative Pruitt asked if the amendment was a clean-up
bill due to the amendments that were adopted in the prior
hearing on the bill. Ms. Cunningham agreed that the
amendment was a clean-up action. However, it had to do with
the "opt out" option not being available.
Representative Pruitt was reminded that the committee had
voted to make the provision and opt-in and opt-out option.
However, he thought the provision was turned down. He was
confused.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 13a was
ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster mentioned that Amendments 13, 6, 7 and 2
still needed addressing. Amendments 6 and 7 had been rolled
to the bottom of the agenda. They had been moved but
withdrawn. The committee's intent was to withdraw them, but
they had already been withdrawn. The committee would not be
addressing them. Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Pierson to
explain. Ms. Pierson relayed that the reason for
withdrawing Amendments 6 and 7, which defined police and
firefighter, were no longer needed. Amendment 10 defined
peace officers and was adopted. Co-Chair Foster explained
that no action would be taken on Amendments 6 and 7.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW Amendment 9.
2:05:04 PM
AT EASE
2:05:38 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to RESCIND Amendment 5 (copy on
file):
Page 1, line 13, following, "firefighter.":
Insert "The department shall create in the fund
an account for state employees and an account for
employees of small municipalities."
Page 2, lines 3-5
Delete "The department shall create two separate
accounts in the fund, one account for state
employees and a separate account for employees of
a small municipality."
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. She thought the amendment
had been rolled to the bottom of the agenda.
Ms. Pierson clarified that Amendment 5 dealt with the fund
and there being 2 funds. She read a portion of the
amendment (see above).
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was
RESCINDED.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Foster instructed Legislative Legal Services to
draft another committee substitute for HB 23 as amended and
to make any necessary conforming changes to the document.
He invited Ms. Pierson to explain the withdrawal of
Amendment 2. Ms. Pierson explained that Amendment 2 tried
to set forth how money was deposited and withdrawn from the
fund. With the adoption of Amendment 13a, Amendment 2 was
no longer needed.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if Amendment 2 had already been
passed. Ms. Pierson responded that the committee had not
passed Amendment 2.
Co-Chair Foster reported that the amendments would be
incorporated in a clean committee substitute. He planned to
bring the bill back before the committee for committee
discussion and a vote.
HB 23 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
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."
2:08:50 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited the testifiers to present their
bill.
MATT GRUENING, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LOUISE STUTES, read
the sponsor statement:
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.
Mr. Gruening elaborated that there was an independent cost
study done in 2008 from the marine harbor group by
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT).
It estimated in 2008 dollars that to bring the motor vessel
(M/V) Taku up to the advanced wastewater treatment system
it would cost $1.25 million. The study extrapolated the
cost for 4 ferries in 2008 dollars, which was $5 million.
Also, if DEC had to issue a special permit for small
commercial passenger vessels it would cost $216,000 to
develop the permit in FY 18. Without the costs of $25,000
per year for compliance work, state of review, and
sampling, the department would not require additional
staff. However, it would curtail other work of the
commercial passenger environmental compliance program. He
reemphasized that there was a certain lack of space and
weight capacity to install the systems on vessels. The bill
would restore the statutory exemption that was previously
in statute before it expired and would restore DEC's
authority to require alternative practices such as best
management practices and the no discharge zones.
Co-Chair Foster relayed the list of testifiers available to
answer questions.
2:13:36 PM
Representative Kawasaki asked if there were dozens of
vessels out of compliance since the language and the
exemption expired January 1, 2016. Mr. Gruening replied
that DEC issued a temporary blanket exemption in the
interim.
Representative Kawasaki mentioned that the wastewater
exemption for small vessels began in 2004. He asked if the
intent was that in 2016 owners of vessels would have to
comply with more stringent rules and technology. Mr.
Gruening was not familiar with the history. He deferred to
Michelle Hale from DEC to answer the question.
MICHELLE HALE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, responded that she was not
involved with the program initially. It was her
understanding that in 2004 small vessels were having a
difficult time complying with requirements that large
vessels complied with for exactly the same issues Mr.
Gruening talked about including space considerations and
costs. Also, small vessels discharged significantly less
volume. In 2004, the legislature put the statutory
provision in place. The department passed regulations in
2006 to implement the provision. The regulations were
currently on the books, but the statute had expired.
Representative Kawasaki indicated he would have to look at
the history of why the exemption was made and why there was
a 12-year sunset included. Typically, when a sunset was put
into effect it was to get compliance within a certain
number of years. He asked her to find the history behind
the sunset. Ms. Hayes relayed that at the time and in
subsequent years, there was a significant amount of
interest in exploring technologies that could be
implemented on vessels to bring them into compliance. She
reported that there was a science advisory panel that
explored technologies available to large cruise ships. Part
of the result of the advisory panel work was the
requirement for advanced wastewater treatment systems.
Those advance wastewater treatment systems took much more
space than was available on the small vessels.
2:16:55 PM
Representative Grenn appreciated the information provided
in the packet, especially the handout, "Small Vessel
Wastewater Discharge Bill - Frequently Asked Questions"
(copy on file). He relayed that in that handout it noted 15
vessels operating in Alaska; 5 state ferries, and 10 small
commercial passenger vessels. He asked about the location
and purpose of the 10 small commercial passenger vessels.
Ms. Hayes was unsure whether there were 10 vessels
currently operating. She expected there to be 10 operating
in the 2016 [2017] season. She indicated that they were
vessels such as the National Geographic vessel - smaller
cruise ships. They did not typically operate during the
current time of year but would operate in April and May.
Representative Grenn noted that the exemption began in
2004. He wondered how many vessels were under the exemption
in 2004. Ms. Hayes did not have the information and did not
know if there were any in 2004, as the regulations passed
in 2006.
Mr. Gruening clarified that the M/V Taku was no longer
included in the number. Therefore, there would be 4 state
ferries and 10 small commercial passenger vessels.
Representative Wilson asked how the state could provide
exemptions to small vessels yet, require testing from
miners, who were not putting anything into the water.
Miners were also required to have settling pools and other
items. She thought it was unfair to give one group an
exemption and require other groups to do a significant
amount of testing.
Ms. Hayes indicated that the answer was complicated. She
elaborated that vessels had been exempt from the Clean
Water Act requirements for many years. Several years ago,
the decision was made that the United States Coast Guard
would regulate wastewater from vessels. It had changed as
laws were passed to regulate cruise ships in Alaska. Cruise
ships in Alaska were regulated by the state and the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) by a separate permit.
However, wastewater of the type being discussed was not
regulated by the EPA; it was regulated by the State of
Alaska. She reported that the State of Alaska had more
stringent limits for cruise ships than the rest of the
country. Other states followed federal requirement
guidelines. There were some special zones. Puget Sound, for
example, had some stringent limits. However, in general,
Alaska had more stringent requirements of cruise ships. The
placer miners that Representative Wilson had mentioned were
regulated under the Clean Water Act and were regulated
under an entirely different set of laws than the cruise
ships and small vessels in Alaska.
2:20:43 PM
Representative Wilson asked who exempted the small cruise
ships. Ms. Hayes asked if Representative Wilson was asking
why vessels were regulated by the Coast Guard rather than
the EPA's Clean Water Act.
Representative Wilson asked if the State of Alaska issued
the exemption. She wondered if the exemption only applied
to state law or if it included federal law. Ms. Hayes
responded that the legislature granted the exemption in
2004. The State of Alaska did not have the authority to
exempt vessels from federal law.
Representative Wilson asked if the state had the ability to
provide an exemption to miners. Ms. Hayes indicated that
mines were regulated by federal law. The legislature did
not have the ability to overturn federal law.
Co-Chair Seaton referred to Page 4 of the wastewater
sampling results for small cruise ships and ferries. He
read a portion of the page:
Small cruise ships and ferries continue to balance
bacterial disinfection and chlorine use. Chlorine is
used to disinfect bacteria, but it is toxic to marine
organisms and high residuals must be avoided. Several
vessels have installed equipment to dechlorinate the
treated wastewater.
Co-Chair Seaton did not see a listing of the vessels or an
estimation of costs associated with dichlorination and the
disposal of the toxic discharge from chlorine. He asked if
there was any information comparing the two. Ms. Hayes
would have to get back with the information.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to see the information because if
there was something that could be implemented efficiently
and cost effectively by the small vessels, it might be
necessary to include the criteria and a completion date in
the extension.
2:24:04 PM
Co-Chair Foster recognized the committee had been joined by
Representative Thompson.
Representative Pruitt asked if he could ask a question of
the deputy commissioner of DOT.
MICHAEL NEUSSL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, introduced himself.
Representative Pruitt indicated that the state was in the
process of building new ferries smaller in size. He thought
they would fall under the category of small commercial
passenger vessel. Mr. Neussl responded in the negative. He
relayed that the 2 new Alaska class ferries that were being
built along with some of the other Alaska Marine Highway
vessels did not have wastewater treatment systems onboard.
They held all of the grey water and black water collected
onboard in storage tanks, which were pumped ashore and
treated through municipal facilities.
Representative Pruitt was glad to hear the information. He
wondered about the initial sunset. He asked if the state
should have certain sunsets for future ships coming into
Alaska waters encouraging the use of new technologies. Mr.
Neussl thought Representative Pruitt had a good point. He
spoke about plans to replace additional Alaska Marine
Highway vessels with other than small day boat ferries like
the Alaska class ferries. It would be an issue. He reported
that the M/V Tustumena had been redesigned and destined for
replacement. The vessel that was designed to replace it
fell under the best management practices exemption because
the exemption was in place at the time the design was
completed. It might have to be revisited and the cost of
the vessel could increase.
Representative Pruitt thought that if the state was going
to ask larger vessels to conform to a certain standard, the
state would be hypocritical if it did not ask the same of
smaller vessels. He was not sure he wanted to encourage a
permanent exemption.
2:28:20 PM
Representative Ortiz asked for a description of the
difference in volume of water discharged between an average
size cruise ship versus an Alaska Marine Highway vessel
such as the M/V Matanuska. He thought there was an extreme
difference in the discharge volume between the two vessel
sizes. Ms. Hale pointed to the handout, "Discharge Volume
Comparison Chart DEC." The chart showed the volume of
discharge of a small cruise ship. The average volume in
June 2016 discharged from the cruise ship was 11,600
gallons per day. The average volume discharged in the same
month from a large cruise ship was 103,000 gallons per day,
almost 10 times more. The graph also showed the average
volume discharged from the Mendenhall Wastewater Treatment
Plant facility was 1,600,000 gallons per day.
Representative Ortiz asked her to explain the standards
under the best management practices model that the Alaska
Marine Highway System used versus the model used by the
cruise ships. He asked her to talk about the differences in
the places in which discharges occurred. Ms. Hayes
responded that the small vessels, such as the small ferries
and cruise ships, had limitations in regulation. They were
not allowed to discharge in Herring spawning areas or
within a certain distance from the mouths of salmon
streams. These types of restrictions made sense for the
small vessels because they had more maneuverability and
flexibility in traveling around Southeast Alaska. The large
cruise ships did not have restrictions around where they
could discharge. However, they had physical limitations in
terms of where they could travel. Essentially, they were
safety limitations. In the regulations there was a
significant amount of detail as to where ships could
discharge wastewater.
Representative Ortiz asked about the previous reduction in
restrictions for major cruise ships as a result of recent
legislative action. Mixing water zones came to mind. He
thought the legislature reduced restrictions placed on
major cruise ships. Ms. Hayes confirmed that in 2013
restrictions were changed. There was a requirement that had
been in place requiring cruise ships to meet water quality
criteria at the point of discharge. The restriction did not
apply to any other discharger in the Alaska, such as
municipalities or industries. She explained that the reason
the science advisory panel was involved was to try to find
technology that could meet the water criteria at the point
of discharge. The bill from 2013 enabled mixing zones to be
designed and established to allow mixing to occur as the
discharge left the cruise ships and to meet the water
criteria at a certain distance from the cruise ships.
2:32:40 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought there had been some controversial
legislation that was passed under Governor Parnell's
administration. He asked when the exemption for small ships
went into effect. Ms. Hayes responded that the exemption
came into place statutorily in 2004. The legislature
created the exemption in 2004 and the regulations were
finalized in 2006.
Vice-Chair Gara indicated that 2004 predated the cruise
ship initiative. Ms. Hayes responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the cruise ship initiative changed
the rules for small vessels. He asked if the legislation
from 2004 was left in place by the cruise ship initiative.
Ms. Hayes was not completely familiar with the history, but
the regulations had been in place until the statute sunset
date of January 1, 2016.
2:34:07 PM
Vice-Chair Gara asked if the language of the bill for the
smaller vessel came into place in 2004 and expired on
January 1, 2016. He asked if the language in HB 51 was the
same language that was in place as of January 1, 2016, at
the time the law expired. Ms. Hayes explained that the bill
simply reinstated the statutory exemption. It did not do
anything else.
Vice-Chair Gara hoped that the regulations on the smaller
vessels would advance with best practices and improvements
in technologies. He asked if he was assuming correctly. Ms.
Hayes replied that she could not predict when regulations
would be passed. She detailed how the program operated. She
conveyed that the best management practices program was a
program of continuous improvement. The best management
practices plans were developed specifically for each
vessel. The vessel owner and operator were very involved in
the development of their plan. The plans were then reviewed
and approved by her staff who worked closely with the
ferries, the Alaska Marine Highway System, and with the
owners of the small cruise ships. He staff made sure the
plans were followed and that improvement continued. For
example, several of her staff had recently traveled to
Ketchikan to meet with Ketchikan's environmental staff to
review how to follow the best management practice, to talk
about training, and to discuss sampling. It was an ongoing
improvement process.
Vice-Chair Gara remarked there had been concerns previously
but thought they had been brought up by Co-Chair Seaton.
Mr. Gruening clarified that HB 51 made no substantive
changes from the old regulation. He pointed to Page 1,
lines 7-8 where Legislative Legal Services had done a
clean-up of jargon. He noted that the word "obtains" had
been replaced with the word "has." There were slight
changes to language but nothing substantive to the actual
regulations.
Representative Guttenberg thought the provisions were old
and predated some of the increased activities on the
Northwest Coast and the Arctic Coast. He asked how the
provisions impacted small vessels. He knew some of the
wastewater standards in the North had not been adopted for
various reasons. He remarked that small vessels would be
getting a waiver in places where there were no standards
presently. He wondered how the legislation related to those
waters. Ms. Hayes answered that any vessels that fit the
definition of small commercial passenger vessel, a vessel
with 50 to 249 lower berths, would be obliged to comply
with the best management practices plan requirement. Vessel
owners and operators would be required to work with her
staff and to take and provide samples. Any vessel that fit
the definition would be required to comply. She added that
any large cruise ships were required to comply with the
requirements pertaining to large vessels.
Representative Guttenberg asked about standards for waters.
He was concerned that some of Alaskan waters had currents
or ice conditions. He indicated that usually best
management practices fit certain criteria. He was under the
impression that Arctic waters did not have any criteria. He
wondered if the legislation would be in place regardless of
such circumstances. Ms. Hayes answered that Alaska water
quality standards and criteria applied to all state waters.
Regarding permitting, the department had done its best to
address all state waters where vessels traveled.
2:39:49 PM
Co-Chair Seaton referred to Table 2 on Page 7 of the
report, "2016 Wastewater Sampling Results for Small Cruise
Ships and Ferries" (copy on file). Table 2 showed
conventional parameters for mixed treated black water and
grey water. He referred to the column in the middle of the
page with the heading of "Fecal Coliform Bacteria." He
reported that the secondary treatment standard was 200. The
M/V Columbia was at 64; the M/V Kennicott was at 6 and at
10; the MV Matanuska was at 170,000 and at 8,900; the M/V
Chichagof Dream was at 2,100,100. He asked what enforcement
action the department took if the vessels were exempted
from compliance. He wanted specifics about the fecal
coliform. Ms. Hayes replied that Co-Chair Seaton had
pointed to good examples of both the information for M/V
Matanuska and for the M/V Chichagof Dream. She pointed out
that the number below 2,1000,000 was zero. The M/V
Chichagof Dream had just been placed into service. They had
done sampling as they were getting ready to place the
vessel into service. They ran the system, took a sample,
saw that it was high, and worked with their best management
practices plan and the department to bring the level down.
She conveyed that the systems were complicated and were
similar to living organisms. She continued to explain that
conditions changed rapidly on vessels. She Thought it was a
good example of why the sampling was important. She spoke
to the improvement seen in the results from the systems
since the implementation of the best management practices.
The geometric mean for fecal coliform in 2004 for small
vessels was 12,500 (fecal coliforms per 100 ml). In 2016,
the geometric mean was 500. The improvement had occurred
from sampling.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if either of the vessels had the
equipment to de-chlorinate the treated wastewater. Ms.
Hayes did not know the answer to his question.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the fecal coliform bacteria went
from 2,000,000 to zero because the vessels dumped in a
significant amount of chlorine and was discharged as well.
Ms. Hayes was unsure. Chlorine killed bacteria and was
definitely used. She commented that the use of chlorine was
a balancing act by the vessel operators. They did not want
to use too much, just enough.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for the chlorination equipment on
each vessel as well as the associated approximate costs.
Ms. Hayes would get back with the information.
Representative Grenn noticed there was no sunset date in
the bill. He wondered if he was accurate. Mr. Gruening
responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Foster set the bill aside and reviewed the agenda
for the following day.
HB 51 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
2:44:43 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 2:44 p.m.