03/03/2004 01:50 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2004
1:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom, Co-Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Cheryll Heinze, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Nick Stepovich
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28
Relating to the socioeconomic impacts of salmon harvesting
cooperatives.
- MOVED HCR 28 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 522
"An Act relating to discharges from small commercial passenger
vessels; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 524
"An Act relating to the protection of land and water from waste
disposal; providing for the regulation of waste management;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 524 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 442
"An Act relating to the Big Game Commercial Services Board and
to the regulation of big game hunting services and
transportation services; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 28
SHORT TITLE: STUDIES OF SALMON HARVESTING COOPERATIVES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) SEATON BY REQUEST OF SALMON
INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
01/28/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/04 (H) EDT, RES
02/12/04 (H) EDT AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/12/04 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/12/04 (H) MINUTE(EDT)
02/19/04 (H) EDT AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 120
02/19/04 (H) Mvd Out of Committee w/new fiscal notes
02/23/04 (H) EDT RPT 4DP
02/23/04 (H) DP: MCGUIRE, CISSNA, CRAWFORD, HEINZE
02/23/04 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
03/01/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/01/04 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/03/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 522
SHORT TITLE: SMALL CRUISE SHIP DISCHARGES
SPONSOR(S): STATE AFFAIRS
02/26/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/04 (H) RES
03/03/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 524
SHORT TITLE: WASTE MANAGEMENT/DISPOSAL
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/26/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/26/04 (H) RES
03/03/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 442
SHORT TITLE: BIG GAME GUIDE BOARD & SERVICES
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF LEG BUDGET & AUDIT
02/09/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/09/04 (H) RES, FIN
02/20/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/04 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/04 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/03/04 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor of HCR 28, provided the
committee with a letter addressing fiscal impacts of the bill.
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff
to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Representative
Weyhrauch, Chair of the House State Affairs Standing Committee,
sponsor.
DAN EASTON, Director
Division of Facility Construction and Operation
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 522.
CAPTAIN MICHAEL JONES (ph), Director
Marine Operations
Lindblad Expeditions (LEX)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 522 on behalf of the Alaska
Small Cruise Vessel Association.
BRYCE BROCKWAY, Vice President
Operations
Cruise West
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 522, provided
information.
CHIP THOMA
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 522; suggested ways to
improve the bill.
ERNESTA BALLARD, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 524.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 524.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 524.
MYRL THOMPSON, Ogan is So Gone
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 524, asked questions
about exemptions relating to coal bed methane drilling.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-11, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR NANCY DAHLSTROM called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. Representatives
Dahlstrom, Masek, Gatto, Heinze, Wolf, and Guttenberg were
present at the call to order. Representatives Lynn, Stepovich,
and Kerttula arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HCR 28-STUDIES OF SALMON HARVESTING COOPERATIVES
Number 0158
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28, Relating to the
socioeconomic impacts of salmon harvesting cooperatives.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM reminded the members that at the last hearing
there were some questions related to the fiscal note. She said
she sent Representative Paul Seaton, sponsor of HCR 28, an e-
mail requesting clarification on a couple of points and copies
of that response have been provided to the members. Co-Chair
Dahlstrom said she believes Representative Seaton's response
[memorandum dated March 3, 2004] was adequate and any further
questions related to financial issues are best addressed in the
next committee of referral, the House Finance Committee.
Number 0229
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF commented that he did not receive the e-
mail.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM replied that all offices were supplied with a
copy of the response this morning, but an additional copy will
be provided.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:55 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.
Number 0300
CO-CHAIR MASEK said that it is pretty clear that it is not the
intent of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force
(JLSITF) or the sponsor to fund the request made in HCR 28 with
general funds. She said she believes that was the major concern
members had and it has now been addressed.
Number 0345
CO-CHAIR MASEK moved to report HCR 28 out of the House Resources
Standing Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF objected. He said he has a problem with the
University of Alaska's involvement in the report. In the past
the socioeconomic studies that the university has done have
created concerns on both sides of the issue. Representative
Wolf told the members that he cannot support the resolution.
Number 0420
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that this resolution is HCR 28.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Heinze, Gatto,
Lynn, Stepovich, Guttenberg, Dahlstrom, and Masek voted in favor
of HCR 28. Representatives Wolf voted against it. Therefore,
HCR 28 was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 7-1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON thanked the committee for their efforts.
HB 522-SMALL CRUISE SHIP DISCHARGES
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 522, "An Act relating to discharges from
small commercial passenger vessels; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0545
LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Bruce Weyhrauch, Alaska
State Legislature, testified, and noted that HB 522 is sponsored
by the House State Affairs Standing Committee. She said HB 522
was brought forward by the small commercial passenger vessels.
She explained that in 2001, the legislature passed the Alaska
Commercial Vessel Environmental Compliance Program, which was a
collaborative effort that was initiated by the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Representative Kerttula, and
the cruise ship industry itself. It was a program that was
designed to minimize discharges into the waters of Alaska. The
program itself involved requirements in which technologies would
be brought on line and wastewater would be processed on board,
in addition, the small vessels were included in this. This
included the large 3,000 passenger cruise ship vessels and the
smaller vessels, which are defined as passenger vessels between
50 and 249 passengers.
MS. SYLVESTER said the idea behind including the small
commercial passenger vessels was that technology would be
developed for processing wastewater and the technology would
filter down to the smaller vessel, which would be able to
implement those and then comply with the Act. The idea didn't
exactly happen that way. There are technologies but to
implement those technologies, the small passenger vessels would
be required to undergo major modifications, excess holding, or
would have to modify the structure to increase the capacity for
storage of the wastewater and other reasons, which is not
practical for this group of vessels, she said. Ms. Sylvester
said the total amount of discharge from this group of boats is
about 3 percent. She said the Alaska Marine Highways and the
small passenger vessels combined is the total amount of 6
percent of wastewater in Alaska, and Alaska Marine Highway
vessels are exempt from this Act. She said this would only net
in the small vessels.
MS. SYLVESTER said the group was waiting for a report from the
DEC on how the industry has been doing and the report was that
the industry is doing very well. The large passenger vessels
have done a great job and Alaska is a true star in environmental
protection for its waterways, she said. The small vessels are
fine at sea but have troubles when in port and stationary. She
said the group got together with the department and worked out a
plan and decided that if the group can't be perfect and their
impact on the environment is very minimal, the best thing to do
would be to work towards best management practices and come up
with a regulatory scheme in which the department can oversee
what's going on and still protect the environment. The bill is
the regulatory scheme. She said essentially the department will
work with each individual operator and eventually a plan for
best management practices would be approved for each vessel for
3 years and "they would touch bases in 3 years." She said the
idea is that the department would have latitude to make
determinations if there is technology that comes on line, and in
its discretion, the department might feel they want to require
the small vessels to implement those. She said the 3-year
period is technology based.
MS. SYLVESTER said BMPs [Best Management Practices] aren't going
to really change; the thought is to ensure there is latitude to
require the small vessels to comply if technology develops. She
said this bill ultimately sunsets, which is structured to
essentially grandfather the vessels that are currently operating
in the waters of Alaska and to control the vessel's emissions
into the water. In 2016, she said this bill will sunset and
those small vessels won't be allowed to discharge water in
Alaska. She explained that any vessel currently under
construction would be required to implement technologies and
wouldn't be covered under this plan.
Number 0988
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the parameter for a small
commercial passenger vessel is from 50 to 249 passengers.
MS. SYLVESTER said according to the definitions, a commercial
passenger vessel means a vessel that carries passengers for hire
except that commercial passenger vessel does not include a
vessel that's authorized to carry fewer than 50 passengers. She
said the Act doesn't concern itself with vessels that are
smaller than 50 passengers, so by default it is between 50 and
249.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Sylvester if she knew how much
the compliance fee would be.
MS. SYLVESTER said she didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Ms. Sylvester to find out.
Number 1120
DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Facility Construction and
Operation, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified.
Mr. Easton told the committee when DEC started talking with the
industry about the concept of pulling the small vessels out of
the full coverage of the 2001 legislation, it was suggested that
the department look for four things in a bill, as follows: One,
that the bill applied only to existing vessels; all new vessels
would be expected to comply with the full force and effect of
the 2001 legislation. Second, that new and existing small
vessels would comply with the registration sampling, reporting,
and inspection requirements. The bill includes more than just
limits on discharge quality, it includes these other sort of
requirements, and it is thought that the existing small vessels
could comply with those. Third, it is thought [DEC] could
develop regulations specifying best management practices (BMP).
Fourth, [DEC] saw the finite end point in time to this
arrangement, and the bill does include a 2016 deadline. In
summary, he said this bill includes everything that [DEC] is
looking for in a bill, and [DEC] does support it. He noted that
a zero fiscal note had been provided.
Number 1242
CAPTAIN MICHAEL JONES (ph), Director, Marine Operations,
Lindblad Expeditions (LEX), testified. Captain Jones told the
committee that he was speaking on behalf of the Alaska Small
Cruise Vessel Association, which represents 3 companies that
operate 10 small vessels in Alaska. Those companies are Cruise
West, Clipper Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company, and
Linblad Expeditions. He said LEX consists of charter vessels
operating natural history voyages in Alaska since 1982. In
1989, LEX had the opportunity to purchase the vessels it was
chartering and as such are operating the vessels Sea Lion and
Sea Bird, to date. He said those vessels are sister ships, 152
feet in length, and carry 70 passengers and 24 crewmembers. The
ships operate between Sitka and Juneau taking in ports in areas
such as Tracy Arm, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and
Petersburg.
CAPTAIN JONES provided the contact information for Clipper
Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company. He said Clipper
Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company operates the
Yorktown Clipper, a 257 vessel that carries 138 passengers and
42 crewmembers, and the Clipper Odyssey, a 300 vessel that
carries 122 passengers and 72 crewmembers. He said Clipper
Cruise Line/New World Ship Management Company has been operating
in Alaska since 1990, starting with the Yorktown Clipper. He
said Yorktown Clipper has itineraries similar to that of LEX
vessels, and the Clipper Odyssey operates farther out. He noted
that the bill packet contained some economic impact information
from each of the companies. Captain Jones talked about LEX's
economic impact for 2004, the information pertaining to the
company's operations in Alaska, and the company's promotions of
Alaska through direct mailings and brochures. He said one
brochure goes to over half a million households, and another
brochure in which Alaska is featured goes to about 890,000
households. He concurred with previously provided testimony.
Captain Jones remarked:
The regulations as stated and in the term small
passenger vessel, we don't have a lot of room to add
things. Over the years, we've maintained our marine
sanitation devices. In some instances holding out;
last year, waiting for this new technology to ideally
come down in size to fit within the envelope, the
footprint of our vessels, so we could actually take
out existing equipment and put in.
Unfortunately, the footprint of this new equipment is
too large, and the process involves separating liquids
and solids, which requires an immense holding capacity
to get to another area to pump out or in the case of
larger vessels where they actually dry the solids and
burn it in there incinerators, which the small vessels
just don't have ... that time.
Number 1602
CAPTAIN JONES mentioned a letter entitled "Limitations on
Modifying Small Commercial Passenger Vessels" from John
Waterhouse, P.E., President, Elliott Bay Design Group, Ltd, who
helps to articulate the situation of the small cruise ships
trying to add new technology into existing vessels.
Number 1655
BRYCE BROCKWAY, Vice President, Operations, Cruise West,
testified. He noted that his responsibilities include the
oversight of all marine, hotel, and technical operations. Mr.
Brockway explained that Cruise West operates six small cruise
vessels in Alaskan waters, which range in size from 78 passenger
vessels to 114 passenger vessels. He mentioned many of the
small communities that Cruise West vessels visit throughout
Alaska, and he explained that Cruise West was founded by Chuck
West (ph) in 1946, in Fairbanks. Mr. Brockway explained that
Mr. West started with some tours out into the Arctic and over
the years it's transformed to Alaska sightseeing and then to
what it is today, Cruise West. He talked about the financial
impact information contained in the bill packets that Cruise
West had provided, and explained that it is essentially similar
to what the other two companies had provided. He pointed out
the Cruise West does employee many Alaska residents because it
does have an "over the road operation" as well through the
Interior, and land offices in Juneau, Ketchikan, and Petersburg.
Mr. Brockway said he intended to provide his testimony in person
but conflict wouldn't allow it.
Number 1821
CHIP THOMA testified. He said he had the opportunity a couple
of years ago to sit on the cruise ship initiative as a member.
Mr. Thoma said what precipitated it is The Anchorage Daily News
and The New York Times uncovered instances of [cruise ships]
dumping [in] "doughnut holes." He said [doughnut holes] are
large areas 3 miles from shore, and there are two or three of
them in Southeast. Mr. Thoma said large ships were targeting
these areas, actually dumping waste in them because the ships
did not comply, and they figured this was outside the realm of
state waters, and they could do so. He said legally they could,
and that brought on the actions by then-U.S. Senator Frank
Murkowski, which resulted in the cruise ship initiative. The
results of that were outstanding. It took a long time to get
the ships tested and to identify that in many cases, the
maintenance to the systems on board had not been done, he said.
Had the maintenance been done, these systems would have worked a
lot better than that. He said there were very high levels of
discharge.
MR. THOMA said this came about because the large cruise ships
insisted that state ferries and small ships be included in this
program, and this was an attempt to do that. He said both the
small ships and the ferries were given a 3-year variance to do
it, which he thought was adequate at the time. Since then it's
been stated that the new equipment doesn't fit and is not ready
to go, but he is not sure if that's the case, and he hadn't seen
anything to that affect yet, he said. Mr. Thoma said it won't
replace what's in here. He said he did appreciate the work
that's been done on HB 522 and thought it was a well-written
bill, but to say that the ships can't feasibly comply with the
program is questionable.
MR. THOMA said the bill packet contains a marine engineer report
which states that the systems cannot be added, and cannot be
readily changed; the combination of U.S. Coastguard regulations,
licensing requirements, and vessel construction practices makes
the addition of new treatment equipment and holding tanks
technically infeasible adding additional volume and increasing
the capacity of wastewater tanks below the main deck. He said
he would agree that adding things to small ships is a problem
but the possibility of replacing them had not been looked at
yet. He said he thought that's what the state should look at
and that is why it has a good 3-year program to review these
things, so DEC can look at the systems that are available to see
if some of them can be replaced. He said the only problem he
has with the bill is on page 3, [lines 20-24], which read in
part:
The department may adopt regulations to implement this
subsection but may not require an owner or operator to
retrofit a vessel solely for the purpose of waste
treatment if the retrofitting requires additional
stability testing or relicensing by the United States
Coast Guard.
Number 2043
MR. THOMA said he believes that this is basically a "poison pill
clause" for the bill that negates the ability to move on,
actually get some changes, and then retrofit some of these
ships. He remarked, "To say that whatever we do is going to
require this, we just don't know that." Mr. Thoma said if a
marine engineer says it is going to require relicensing or
retesting, then [the vessel operator] is "off the hook." He
suggested that it should be looked at. Mr. Thoma, directing
attention to page 6, said he thought [paragraphs] (1)-(4) were
very good. He referred to paragraphs (1) and (2), which read:
(1) the vessel is underway and proceeding at a
speed of not less than six knots;
(2) the vessel is at least one nautical mile
from the nearest shore, except in areas designated by
the department;
MR. THOMA remarked:
I went to the web sites for all these companies -
Lindblad, Cruise West - all the companies that we're
talking about today. Each one of these ships
specifically targets wildlife areas. They're going
exactly to these doughnut holes; they're going to the
Brothers Island, and Frederick Sound. They're going
to Point Adolphus, and they're going to Neka Sound off
of Sitka to look at Sea Otters. So that's what
they're doing is targeting wildlife.
MR. THOMA said he thought this [paragraph], except in those
areas designated by the department, should be looked at very
closely to see if "that can actually expand these discharge
areas." He said there really should be a two or three mile
buffer around the Brothers Island, which is a huge sea lion
rookery that whales coming in from Mexico and Hawaii go to. He
said the same [should be done] with Point Adolphus and Neka
Sound. Mr. Thoma said he thought there are some special areas
that need some further work by DEC, and if that could be done to
"bring this bill up to snuff," he was very much in support of
it.
Number 2115
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the big ships insisted that small
ferries be included.
MR. THOMA said correct; into the program.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "Who says they can insist on
anything?"
MR. THOMA said the [cruise ship industry] was a part of the
cruise ship initiative, and as far as the consensus process that
was worked up, it had a very big part in determining how [the
initiative] was going to proceed. He indicated that the cruise
ship industry was not going to cooperate unless the state's
ferry system and small ships also complied. Mr. Thoma said
there was a lot of testimony given that the smaller ships
couldn't add the extra tanks. On the bigger ships it was found
that the ballast tanks could be converted into holding tanks,
and it wasn't necessary to have them all for ballasts. He said
the small ships just didn't have that, which is why they were
given three years to look at further technology and changes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern about the words
"consensus" and "insisted" almost being used together.
MR. THOMA said in a consensus situation, a consensus cannot be
reached unless there are some parameters. He said he guessed
that the parameters were set up so that small ships and ferries
be included, and that's what everybody agreed to. Mr. Thoma
said "we" wanted to address all of the problems, especially, the
large boat's problems, which have hundreds of passengers on
board.
Number 2187
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Mr. Thoma what he would suggest to
take the "poison out of the pill."
MR. THOMA said by taking out this clause, so the onus is not on
DEC that every time it comes up with an idea that it is not
going to "fly" because it's going to require a new test. He
said he thought DEC and the small ships should work
cooperatively, which he thought they are. He said he didn't
think there is any animosity at all, and there is certainly none
on his part. Mr. Thoma noted that he thought [DEC and the small
ships] should work more collaboratively together.
Number 2227
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked Mr. Thoma for his work. She
asked what stability testing and relicensing encompasses.
MR. THOMA replied that he didn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked why the section was drafted this
way to say that the department couldn't require retrofitting if
it was going to cause additional stability testing or
relicensing. She asked about the kinds of testing and what
relicensing encompasses.
CAPTAIN JONES referred to Mr. Waterhouse's letter, and he said
he thought Mr. Waterhouse did a pretty good job on the section
entitled "Regulatory environment", which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Small Commercial Passenger vessels that operate under
the U.S. flag are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard
and carry a certificate of inspection showing
compliance with all safety requirements. To qualify
as a small passenger vessel they must admeasure less
than 100 gross tons. Please note that gross tonnage
is a measure of internal volume and not weight. Their
design and construction are principally regulated
under Subchapter K of Chapter 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations which applies to vessels that
carry 50 or more passengers in overnight service or
more than 150 passengers in day service. If changes
are made to a vessel that increase its admeasurements
to more than 100 Gross Tons, the vessel is no longer
considered a small passenger vessel by the U.S. Coast
Guard and is subject to a different "license" or
certification.
CAPTAIN JONES remarked:
When we say additional stability testing and licensing
that the Coast Guard ... may require, is sort of
what's encapsulated here in this ... letter is the
vessel now becomes a different animal, a different
ship, [and] is no longer a small passenger vessel. It
would then potentially become a large passenger
vessel, which would have a regulator under subchapter
H, which requires ... a whole lot more equipment,
space, [and] personnel on board; the licenses is a
certification itself for the vessel and potentially
people operating the vessel.
... It just becomes a whole different vessel, so I
think that's why, in the bill, that provision was put
there, because of the major modification that was
discussed earlier [it] certainly ... wasn't the
intention when we worked with ADEC [Department of
Environmental Conservation] and the industry to draft
this bill that we're going to be ... forced to cut the
ship in half to stretch it lengthen it, [and] put
sponson on it.
Those sort of issues that would then kick in. ...
Virtually, what it would mean is we'd be out of
business. ... We wouldn't be able to spend the money,
take the ship out of revenue, lose passenger space,
and add all this. It'd be multi-million dollars to do
that. ... In the letter, it's pretty unfeasible to
think that you would be able to have subchapter K
vessel and operate under the existing licensing; it
would become something different, which is not our
business.
Number 2267
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that the
requirement to do stability testing means that the vessel has
dramatically changed.
CAPTAIN JONES replied yes. He said he thought stability
modeling and different testing are things that can be done and
is something that goes on within the parameters. He remarked:
In this bill is this something that's going to
drastically turn this ship into something that then
kicks in the major modification clause within the
regulations, which then again makes it a ... whole
different vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if stability testing would only be
done for something major rather than for minor changes.
CAPTAIN JONES said correct. Under this context there are
different stability tests and models that are done all the time.
There are stability booklets and letters for the operation of
the vessel as it is built.
MR. BROCKWAY said basically the vessels are fixed tonnage and if
anything is adjusted or taken off and replaced with a new piece
of equipment that is the same weight, stability testing is not
required. He said the plan is to keep looking at new equipment
as Mr. Thoma suggested. As long as the new equipment used to
replace the old equipment doesn't change the weight. He said
changing weights is a "whole new game" because the weight change
has to be overcome by adding more buoyancy. He said Mr.
Waterhouse's letter explains what the buoyancy and stability
means to the small vessel. The large ship was able to take
"tankage" that was used for ballasts and change them into
graywater and black water storage. He said in order for [small
vessels] to do that, the weight has to be overcome by adding
buoyancy, and by doing that, in most cases, vessels will have to
add "sponsity" or be lengthened. Mr. Brockway noted that this
clause was put in the bill to explain that.
Number 2590
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM noted that the committee was under time
constraints due to commitments to hear other bills. She said it
is apparent that the committee has some work to do on this bill
and that it is the last committee of referral. She asked the
sponsor to continue to work on the issues that had been
addressed.
Number 2626
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how often vessels go into the
doughnut holes during a summer and how much waste is dumped.
CAPTAIN JONES said he didn't think the doughnut hole issue is
and issue for [LEX]. He suggested the issue was brought up
because of untreated sewage being dumped in those areas.
Furthermore, he said [LEX's] waste is treated and can be
discharged anywhere. Captain Jones said [LEX] does not target
doughnut holes and "we may very well, trying to get from point A
to point B, be in different areas, but an itinerary isn't
designed because of a doughnut hole." He reiterated that this
is not really an issue for these vessels. Captain Jones noted
that 3 percent is the total discharge for this group of vessels
and is a factual number in the report. He remarked:
To try to look at it in the case of my two vessels ...
in the entire Alaska season where I have 14 seven-day
trips on one vessels and 16 seven-day trips on another
vessel, I'll be carrying probably just over a thousand
passengers total for the entire summer, so if you put
that against one that's doing a thousand or more at a
time.
CAPTAIN JONES referred to a graph, and he said saltwater is used
to flush the toilets on the ship, which includes seawater and
graywater. He said his vessels were using 2,000 gallons of
graywater and 3,000 gallons of black water for a 24-hour period
of time.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked Captain Jones to provide that
information to Representative Weyhrauch's staff, and she said
she thought having that information will answer some of these
questions, which can be addressed during the next bill hearing.
CAPTAIN JONES said the information was already in the report
contained in the bill packets.
Number 2785
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said 3 percent sounded like a small
number, but she was trying to define what was really going on.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM said the bill would be brought up as soon as
possible.
[HB 522 was held over.]
HB 524-WASTE MANAGEMENT/DISPOSAL
Number 2802
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 524, "An Act relating to the protection
of land and water from waste disposal; providing for the
regulation of waste management; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
ERNESTA BALLARD, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), testified. She said the governor has a very
ambitious program for environmental protection and resource
development. She remarked, "They compliment each other and the
governor expects excellence in both." Commissioner Ballard said
this bill is an essential piece of [DEC's] ability to support
any resource development program and to assure that the
environment is protected at the time that the resources are
developed. She said she is proud to report to the committee in
support of the governor's overall program that each of the
budgets that have been presented to the legislature by Governor
Murkowski has increased DEC's core capabilities with additions
to its permit staff.
Number 2888
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said DEC's environmental protection role is
defined by legislation passed over many legislative sessions
over the last 30 years that assigns clear responsibility to DEC
control water, land, and air pollution in Alaska and to also
fulfill the state's obligations under the Clean Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, and other federal legislation, which establish a
two-tiered approach to protecting the nation's environment. The
first tier is national air and water quality standards. The
second tier is state implementation that is responsive to the
unique needs of each state. She stated that she is a relentless
advocate of a strong state budget and a strong state program for
environmental protection and the comprehensive regulatory
program necessary to carry that out. She said the Clean Water
Act is ultimately the subject of HB 524 and is designed to
provide states with the latitude to shape water pollution
control programs to fit their own unique circumstances. The
Alaska Legislature, following the opportunity presented by the
Clean Water Act, has charted a course in state law that governs
water, as well as air, energy, and environmental conservation.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said HB 524 expands the responsibilities
already designated by the legislature for DEC. It expands DEC's
ability to control pollution and it refocuses DEC's approach to
the complex issues of solid and mine wastes. She said HB 524
provides important "tools" DEC will use to authorize its waste
disposal activities. She said "the tools are arrayed by risk"
and there are "different tools for different risks." She said
this bill grew from [DEC's] comprehensive review of its programs
that followed Administrative Order 202, the first administrative
order passed by Governor Murkowski when he first took office in
December 2002. She said Administrative Order 202 directed all
departments of state government to do a comprehensive review of
their statutory authorities and their programs to assure that
they are using state resources efficiently and effectively.
Commissioner Ballard said HB 524 is part of DEC's overall effort
to clarify, streamline, and adhere to federal and state
statutes.
TAPE 04-11, SIDE B
COMMISSIONER BALLARD it is DEC's goal with its environmental
protection program to assure that all program components from
legislative budgeting and oversight to fieldwork and enforcement
are conducted in the state, with Alaskan solutions, and
specifically addressing Alaskan challenges. She said HB 524 is
an essential piece of bringing Alaskan program home to Alaska to
assure that the priorities negotiated between the governor and
the legislature, at the time the budgets are approved, are
translated into "on the ground" programs to protect the state's
resources.
Number 2950
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said [HB 524] clarifies [DEC's] "statutory
foundation," and she called attention to handout in the packet
provided by DEC. She said the handout begins by asserting that
this is a key piece of [DEC's] statutory foundation. The bill
has a zero fiscal note because it is clarification of the
department's authorities and does not add any additional staff
or expenses. She said [the bill] is part of a rational water
protection program that the state has not enjoyed over the 30
years as it has developed its environmental protection program.
Commissioner Ballard said DEC calls that program "raindrops to
oceans" and the term is used because water begins as condensate
in the air and ultimately falls to the earth as rain; it cycles
through surface water, ground water, and ultimately goes out to
the sea. She remarked, "If we don't have a comprehensive and a
rational approach to it, we're going to miss the boat." She
said if it is protected in one area and not another area, "we"
haven't done ourselves any good.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD explained that the water is looked at as a
continuum from raindrops to ocean, and this bill is a key
component of filling in gaps that [DEC] feels it has now in its
statutory foundation to protect the water. She said it is a
bill that primarily gives [DEC] a set of risk-based
authorizations, which can be used to address the riskiest
impacts to water with the "sharpest tools." She said remarked,
"We can still by rule and therefore, with public comment, with
opportunity for all stakeholders to participate; by rule we can
address even the most minimal risks." She said the bill has
five components of authorization for waste disposal activities
depending on risks, which are identified in the handout by the
bullet points. This an extremely important change from the
current authority DEC has. The current authority simply
references a permit; it doesn't make clear that a permit may be
a different type of authorization then an individual permit with
the name of the discharger on it, and developing an individual
relationship with DEC.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said the tool DEC would use for the
riskiest impacts to water would be an individual permit in which
DEC would negotiate specific discharge requirements for an
individual discharger. The next tool in reduction of risk would
be a general permit in which DEC would authorize one permit for
a number of similar activities in a geographic area. Each
individual discharger would still need to contact DEC, and DEC
would still have an individual relationship with them, but would
not negotiate independent or promulgate independent permit terms
for them.
Number 2812
COMMISSIONER BALLARD called attention the third bullet, and she
said this tool is one that DEC is very eager to have. It's
called "permit by rule" or sometimes "regulatory rule" or
"permission by regulation," she said. She said the best example
she can give for people who are unfamiliar with environmental
regulations is a building permit. In some communities, if a
person is doing simple remodeling at a cost of less than $5,000,
that individual does not need an individual permit. She said if
the remodeling does not include moving a bearing wall or putting
in plumbing, the home owner would simply conform to "best
practices," which are usually listed in a sheet that the city
can provide. She said this is a permit by rule, and the rule is
that person complies with the conditions that are on the sheet
of paper, but does not need an individual permit or a building
inspector. She said the difference between a permit by rule and
nothing is, first, [DEC] goes through rule making and
promulgates the terms and conditions under which, for instance,
bilges could be pumped. She offered some examples.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said if [DEC] goes through rule making to
identify the best practices for a low risk activity, then it has
the opportunity for stakeholder comment, and equally important,
DEC would have the opportunity to enforce. She said if there is
a blatant violation and somebody observes somebody else doing
wrong and points it out to DEC, and if DEC had done nothing and
had no regulatory relationship with the general public, it is
helpless. He said if DEC has a permit by rule, it is a low
impact risk and a very low impact regulatory activity, but it
provides the protection [DEC] believes the environment deserves
and needs. She turned attention to "plan approvals," and she
said [DEC] has many places, in both statute and regulation in
state law and state code, in which plans are submitted to
various agencies for review. Commissioner Ballard said this
bill gives [DEC] specific authority to not just review, but
approve a plan when it's necessary, and that approval step
provides the control [DEC] thinks it needs to achieve
environmental protection.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said something extremely important to large
mines is the opportunity for DEC to issue a consolidated waste
management permit for complex facilities which now require more
than one permit. She said this is permit streamlining, and this
administration had talked a lot about it and this is an example
of it. She said HB 524 also allows an administrative extension
of DEC permits, and she remarked, "We are good, but we're not
perfect." She said DEC sometimes doesn't have the staff or the
resources to renew a permit at the time the permit has expired.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said it is extremely important for DEC to
have the permits administratively extended so the regulated
community, municipalities, and industrial permit holders are not
out of compliance because [DEC] does not have the resources to
get to the permits. She said the next issue is extremely
important to stakeholders and developers because it allows [DEC]
to require proof of financial responsibility under certain waste
circumstances. She said DEC uses proof of financial
responsibilities in several places in DEC regulation, and it is
the tool by which DEC assures that financial resources are set
aside and dedicated to long-term clean up or maintenance of a
long-term treatment system for a solid waste facility or a mine
waste facility. This assures citizens in the future that when
an undertaking is over and there is a residual waste system or
pile in place, that financial resources are available to assure
that it is maintained.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said the last major component of HB 524 is
modification to the definitions of solid waste and municipal
solid waste. It is important for DEC to be able to distinguish
between municipal wastes and industrial wastes. She said DEC
has different provisions in law and in regulation and it
ultimately needs the ability to allow the small municipal waste
facilities that are operated in Alaska's many small villages and
communities to operate under a much less rigorous regulatory
regime than more large and complex facilities. She said this
changes to the definition makes DEC's authority to do that
clear.
Number 2579
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM asked that testimony be limited to three
minutes each.
Number 2542
MARILYN CROCKETT, Deputy Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), testified, and stated she is in support of
HB 524. She said the bill is a very important and necessary
streamlining mechanism that the department has proposed. The
ability to use the additional regulatory tools is very
important, not only to the applicants but to the department,
which has to operate with limited resources, she said. She said
the other component of the bill that AOGA is very interested in
and is strongly supporting is the ability of the department to
administratively present permits when they expire. That does
allow DEC to focus and prioritize on the authorizations and the
permits that have the higher risk, and it allows DEC to
prioritize those activities. She said it provides protection to
the regulated community, as well, in the event that a permit or
an authorization that is currently held is about to expire and
there is not time to get it renewed. She said this is a
procedure that is routinely used by the federal government
through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and AOGA
commends the department for including it in this provision.
Number 2463
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), testified. He said AMA supports this bill, which would
make important changes, specifically, the administrative
extension of permits, which [AMA] believes is crucial and will
help both industry and DEC in that situation. He said the use
of permit by rule was well described, and he suggested it is
much simpler for all [parties] involved to have a set of rules
"and if a person follows those rules, they are indeed in
compliance with the law and they don't need to actually go and
apply for a permit, wait for the processing, worry about not
getting the permit on time, and then ... they need to review the
permit." He said he believes these are all important changes to
the law, and AMA supports them.
Number 2386
MYRL THOMPSON, Ogan Is So Gone, testified. He directed
attention to Section 3, subparagraph (C), and asked if this is
an exemption for coal bed methane drilling.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said this language is in existing statute
and there is no change proposed. She said subparagraph (C)
refers to "exploratory drilling the produced water," and the
exemption was put in by the legislature a number of years ago.
She stated that DEC is not proposing any change.
MR. THOMPSON asked how that exemption would affect drilling in
the Matanuska Valley with respect to [HB 524].
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said there would be no change to the
current regulatory regime since there is no change proposed to
statute.
MR. THOMPSON said he didn't have any problem with the bill per
se, but he does have a problem with that particular exemption
due to the ongoing process in the Matanuska Valley.
Number 2263
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked how the proof of financial
responsibility integrate with reclamation and reclamation
bonding or funds.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD mentioned that the Department of Natural
Resources had recently presented the committee with some
statutory language. She noted that it was pointed out in the
handout that DEC will coordinate with a "financial assurance
vehicle," which is provided through DNR requirements. She said
both requirements are important and "their" reclamation bonding
is extremely important for the physical acts of reclamation.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said DEC's proof of financial assurance is
important for the environmental protection that it seeks for
future potential waste management issues. She said if a mining
developer offers a financial instrument which has adequate asset
depth to cover both requirements, [DEC and DNR] will both accept
the same instrument but can't put up the same assets to pledge
for two different responsibilities.
Number 2191
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 2, [paragraph
2], and he asked if that section would have been dealt with if
Fairbanks had made a different determination on its last
election.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said that language will not have any impact
on the I/M program in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to page 5, Section 4,
and he said it looks like the bill is changing who does the
forms from the EPA to the state. He asked if it was assumed
that could be done with no cost.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD answered in the affirmative.
Number 2140
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 524 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 524 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM turned the gavel over to Co-Chair Masek.
HB 442-BIG GAME GUIDE BOARD & SERVICES
Number 2106
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 442, "An Act relating to the Big Game
Commercial Services Board and to the regulation of big game
hunting services and transportation services; and providing for
an effective date."
CO-CHAIR DAHLSTROM moved to adopt CSHB 442, 23-LS1398\Q,
Utermohle, 2/26/04, as the working document. There being no
objection, CSHB 442, version Q, was adopted by the House
Resources Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the bill will be held in committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|