Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/02/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB134 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 2, 2009
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 134
"An Act relating to the terms and conditions of commercial
vessel permits for the discharge of graywater, treated sewage,
and other waste water; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 134
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS
02/13/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/09 (H) CRA, RES
02/17/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/17/09 (H) Moved CSHB 134(CRA) Out of Committee
02/17/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/18/09 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NT 5DP
02/18/09 (H) DP: HARRIS, MILLETT, KELLER, HERRON,
MUNOZ
03/02/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 134.
DAVID FEATHERSON HAUGH (ph)
NovaTech Consultants (ph)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions in regard to HB 134.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 134, provided
information in regard to cruise ship wastewater discharge.
ALBERT JUDSON
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134.
LEN LAURANCE
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134 on behalf of Alaska
RainForest Sanctuary, Seahorse Ventures, Taquan Air, and Alaska
Canopy Adventures.
SHAUNA LEE, Tour Manager
The Great Alaska Lumberjack Show
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
BOB WEINSTEIN, Mayor
City and Borough of Ketchikan
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134 as written.
STACY STUDEBAKER, Conservation Chair
Kodiak Audubon Society
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134, but suggested an amendment.
JENNANEVA PEARSON (ph)
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134.
JENNIFER GIBBINS, Soundkeeper/Executive Director
Prince William Soundkeeper
Cordova, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134, but suggested an amendment.
CAROLINE HIGGINS, Chair
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
JOHN BINKLEY, President
Alaska Cruise Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
KAREN HESS, Owner
River Adventures
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
MICHAEL RICHARDS
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
DEB HICKOK, President, CEO
Fairbanks Convention and Business Bureau
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
CHERYL METIVA, Executive Director, CEO
Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
ROGER MAYNARD
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
CHIP THOMA
Responsible Cruising Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134 as written.
KATE TROLL, Executive Director
Alaska Conservation Alliance
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134 as written, but suggested an
amendment.
JEREMY WOODROW, Communications Coordinator
Alaska Municipal League
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
SHELLY WRIGHT, Executive Director
Southeast Conference
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 134.
CHRISTOPHER KRENZ, Ph.D.
Oceana
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 134 as written.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:09 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Neuman,
Johnson, Seaton, Wilson, Tuck, Kawasaki, and Edgmon were present
at the call to order. Representative Guttenberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 134-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
1:02:38 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 134, "An Act relating to the terms and
conditions of commercial vessel permits for the discharge of
graywater, treated sewage, and other waste water; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee was CSHB
134(CRA).]
1:03:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 134, began by noting that he agreed to
bring the bill forward on behalf of the cruise ship industry and
in consultation with the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). He explained that HB 134, as currently
written, would eliminate five words, ["at the point of
discharge"], from the statute. Those five words relate to where
and how the discharge from the larger cruise ships will be
measured, he continued. For all other discharges around the
state, DEC uses a mixing zone method rather than a point of
discharge method. The cruise ship industry believes it is only
fair that they be subject to the same mixing zone method, he
said. The 2006 Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative that became law
requires the larger cruise ships to meet a much higher standard
for pollutants than do municipalities, processors, and other
entities. Under HB 134, the Department of Environmental
Conservation would have the ability to regulate cruise ship
discharge using the mixing zone method, if the department so
chooses.
1:07:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS urged that the Department of Environmental
Conservation continue to encourage the cruise ship and other
industries to put in place the best environmental techniques
possible that are economical. There must be an equilibrium in
regard to cost over the environment, he said. There are times
when something cannot be allowed because it is too polluting,
but this is not the case here as the majority of these cruise
ships are meeting the interim standard. He reminded members
that the standard will go higher in a couple of years and the
cruise ship industry is saying that the higher standard will be
even more difficult for them to meet with the technologies that
are currently available.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS clarified that he is not saying these five
words are insignificant. He credited the folks who put forth
the 2006 initiative and said protecting the environment is the
right thing to do. But, he continued, how far the environment
is protected versus what municipalities and other industries are
required to do must be challenged, and HB 134 does that.
1:09:55 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked what communities have said about HB 134.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS answered that the Alaska Municipal League,
a number of coastal and other communities around the state, and
several chambers of commerce have written in support of HB 134,
as it is currently written.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN added that 38 [entities] from around the state
have passed resolutions in support HB 134.
1:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether HB 134 dilutes the
original intent of the voter initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied no. The discharge requirement
will not change, it is where the test is taken that will change.
When the test is done at the end of the pipe, it is what it is
in the pipe. The proposed mixing zone method is what is in the
pipe mixed with the water, so the standard would be easier to
reach. The standard will not change, but the ability to reach
it will.
1:13:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI responded that it is debatable as to
whether this is not actually changing the standard. He surmised
that Representative Harris is saying the standards for cruise
ships should be reduced to meet the same compliance standards
for municipalities which allow higher discharge levels of copper
and ammonia.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he is not at all saying that. "This
bill does nothing at all to change the standard that was put in
place by the initiative," he continued. All it does is possibly
change how the test is conducted. It gives the authority to the
Department of Environmental Conservation to use tried and true
methods that are used in other places. "The discharge from
municipalities is set at a much less stringent degree than it is
for cruise ships and this does not change that at all," he said.
1:15:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI suggested that perhaps the standards for
effluent discharge should be raised for the state's communities.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS replied that he thinks that point will be
raised by folks who will be testifying. When a borough is told
that its sewage rates will likely triple in order to pay for
increased standards, it will not be easy for the borough. It is
different when someone else is paying the bill. The municipal
discharge level is not changed by HB 134 and neither is the
discharge rate of the cruise ships, he argued. The bill allows
- it does not mandate - that DEC use the tried and true methods
that have been used for many years to measure the discharge from
the cruise ships.
1:17:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that most of the resolutions of
support are the same as that of the City and Borough of Juneau
which reads as follows [original punctuation provided]:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ... That the City and
Borough of Juneau urges the Alaska Legislature in
2009, to examine, based on science, the standards
governing the discharge of cruise ship wastewater such
that those standards will continue to protect aquatic
life and the environment, but will not be
technologically and financially unreasonable or
impractical, and establish an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that Representative Harris is
not saying to necessarily lower the standards, but rather to do
something that is effective, reasonable, and economical for the
continuation of business.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS agreed that the bill does not lower the
standards or diminish the quality of the environment. Rather,
it gives DEC the ability to allow mixing zones like is done with
every other discharge. He said he is not encouraging that the
standards be reduced. If technology can be found that would
provide the ability to meet these end-of-the-pipe standards,
then DEC should encourage the ships to put this technology on
board. A higher standard goes into effect in two more years and
HB 134 does not stop that, but it will be even more difficult
for the ships to meet this higher standard at the end of the
pipe. The department has said it will continue to encourage the
large cruise ships to have the best available technology that is
affordable and can be done without undue harm, he related.
1:20:10 PM
DAVID FEATHERSON HAUGH (ph), NovaTech Consultants (ph), in
response to Co-Chair Neuman, said he does not have any specifics
to add at this point. He said he is available to offer his
viewpoint on the feasibility of treating ship wastewater on
shore, and that it would be better for that discussion to occur
before he provides his comments. He understood that HB 134
would not change the quality of discharge from the ships, but
rather the location at which it is measured.
MR. FEATHERSON HAUGH, in further response to Co-Chair Neuman and
Representative Seaton, explained that NovaTech Consultants is a
consulting engineering firm that specializes in marine
wastewater treatment and monitoring. The company samples and
monitors all of the Royal Caribbean and Celebrity ships that
operate in Alaska as well as one of the Carnival ships. He said
NovaTech was retained by the Alaska Cruise Ship Association to
provide technical advice at the [February 2009] Department of
Environmental Conservation workshop. In further response, Mr.
Featherson Haugh said NovaTech also works in the land-based
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment business, has
offices in British Columbia, and works in Canada and the U.S.
1:23:20 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, spoke from the following written
statement [original punctuation provided, but some formatting
changes included]:
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has
been working with the cruise industry and regulating
cruise ship discharges for almost 10 years. More
recently, we've been implementing the Cruise Ship
Initiative that was passed by Alaskan voters in 2006.
The initiative included three main environmental
provisions:
A requirement to have an Ocean Ranger on board
A requirement for vessels to report their location
hourly to DEC
A requirement for vessels that intend to discharge
wastewater to obtain a permit from DEC.
I would like to provide an update on the environmental
requirements of the initiative including the new Ocean
Ranger program, the permit requirements, studies that
are underway, and the impact of HB 134.
1:24:43 PM
Citizen's Initiative - Ocean Rangers
The initiative required an Ocean Ranger (a U.S. Coast
Guard-licensed marine engineer) to be on board all
large cruise ships entering Alaska waters to observe
vessel compliance with state and federal
environmental, sanitation, health and safety
requirements. The program is funded by a $4/berth fee
that nets approximately $4.0 million/year.
DEC implemented a pilot program during the 2007 cruise
ship season, using marine engineers and environmental
professionals on board some vessels to evaluate
training needs for the Ocean Rangers; to develop an
Ocean Ranger checklist for observations; and to learn
about the issues surrounding reservation of berths,
scheduling of Ocean Rangers, and communications
between Ocean Rangers and DEC.
Full implementation of the Ocean Ranger program
started with the 2008 season:
An Ocean Ranger was on-board 88% of the voyages for
the full time they were in Alaska waters.
Other vessels were inspected while in-port.
DEC received over 2,000 daily Ocean Ranger reports
with 126 incidents that required follow-up. Most of
the issues were immediately resolved by the vessels.
Citizen's Initiative - Vessel Tracking
The citizen's initiative requires the ships to provide
hourly location information to DEC. All vessels
complied with this requirement and DEC has been able
to use the information to verify vessel compliance.
1:26:24 PM
Citizen's Initiative - Wastewater Discharge Permit
The initiative required large cruise ships to obtain a
wastewater discharge permit from DEC and to comply
with Alaska's Water Quality Standards "at the point of
discharge."
Alaska's Water Quality Standards are regulations that
describe how clean Alaska's fresh and marine waters
have to be to protect the various uses - drinking
water, contact recreation, and protection of aquatic
life. The standards apply to the waterbody and not
directly to a wastewater discharge, except in the case
of discharges from large cruise ships where the
discharge must meet the Water Quality Standards at the
point of discharge.
DEC issued a general permit on March 25, 2008. The
permit contains "long term" effluent limits for
ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc based on the Water
Quality Standards. These strict effluent limits must
be met by the 2010 cruise ship season.
The permit also contains a compliance schedule and
"interim limits" that are less stringent for the 2008
and 2009 cruise ship seasons.
1:27:44 PM
HB 134
The effect of HB 134 would be to allow DEC, under
certain circumstances, to authorize mixing zones for
treated wastewater discharged from cruise ships. A
mixing zone is an area where Water Quality Standards
can be exceeded while the wastewater has a chance to
mix with receiving waters. The Water Quality
Standards have to be met at the edge of an authorized
mixing zone.
We have been looking at the science around cruise ship
wastewater for years. For the last few years we have
been engaged in a series of studies, some in
conjunction with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, about how cruise ship discharges mix with
receiving waters. We are also currently investigating
potential wastewater treatment technologies.
Based on our work to date, the following are some of
the facts as we know them.
1:28:38 PM
Quality of treated wastewater
All large cruise vessels discharging in Alaska waters
have installed Advanced Wastewater Treatment systems
that produce a high quality effluent.
During the 2008 cruise ship season, 20 of the 31 large
cruise ships discharged in State waters.
Cumulatively, these vessels took a total of 206
effluent samples to satisfy the terms of the
wastewater discharge permit. Each sample was analyzed
to determine the concentration of nine parameters.
Focusing just on the parameters of concern (ammonia,
copper, nickel and zinc)-- out of 824 data points (206
samples with 4 parameters), there were 36 exceedances
of interim permit limits noted on 11 vessels. That
means approximately 4% (36/824 * 100 = 4.4%) of the
data points exceeded the interim limits for ammonia,
copper, or zinc. The most frequent exceedance was for
ammonia (21 of the 36 exceedances).
If we look at exceedances of the stricter 2010 long
term limits, we see a different picture. Based on
2008 effluent monitoring, there would be 563
exceedances of the long term permit limits for those
same parameters. That means approximately 68%
(563/824*100 = 68.3%) of the data points would exceed
the long term limits.
1:29:58 PM
Dilution Studies
It is important to understand the effects of cruise
ship discharges on Alaska waters. In order to do
that, DEC must evaluate both the quality of the
wastewater discharge in conjunction with the dilution
that it is subject to. This information can then be
used to estimate whether the wastewater would cause
exceedances of Water Quality Standards in the
receiving waters.
DEC convened a Science Advisory Panel to evaluate the
results of a field study that [the Environmental
Protection Agency] conducted in 2001 to determine the
effect of discharges on Alaska waters when the vessel
is underway. The Science Panel determined that when a
typical large cruise ship is moving at a minimum speed
of 6 knots, the wastewater discharged is subject to
tremendous dilution. For wastewater discharged at 200
cubic meters/hour, the dilution factor is 50,000.
When the sample results of the cruise ship wastewater
are divided by the 50,000 dilution factor, the Science
Panel concluded that the wastewater would almost
instantaneously meet Alaska Water Quality Standards in
the receiving water.
During the 2008 legislative session, the legislature
directed DEC to evaluate how treated cruise ship
effluent mixes with and dilutes into receiving waters.
We conducted the study in Skagway this past season in
conjunction with research the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency was performing with its Ocean
Research Vessel "Bold." We provided an interim report
of the study to the legislature on January 12, 2009.
1:31:27 PM
The study last summer was designed to collect field
data in order to calculate the dilution that occurs to
wastewater when it is discharged under worst case
conditions -- from a stationary cruise ship into a
confined receiving environment with limited flushing.
A ship moored in Skagway Harbor represents a worst
case situation for dilution.
The results of the study were mixed. Under certain
assumptions, Water Quality Standards would be met in
the receiving water within 15 meters of the vessel.
Using other assumptions, it will take a greater
distance from the vessel to meet Water Quality
Standards.
While the dilution study work is not complete, there
is some suggestion that in certain worst cases, mixing
zones may not be appropriate for moored vessels.
1:32:10 PM
Technology Review
DEC is not currently aware of treatment systems that
are readily available to be installed on all vessels
by 2010 and that would produce effluent meeting water
quality standards without mixing zones.
We are in the process of evaluating the cruise line's
efforts to reduce ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc in
their wastewater effluent by evaluating potential
source reduction and, as necessary new treatment
technologies.
We have retained a consultant to evaluate new and
emerging technologies that could potentially be
installed on cruise ships to meet the water quality
standards at the point of discharge. A draft report
is available for review and a technology workshop with
national and international participants was held
Wednesday, February 18 in Juneau. Information from
the workshop will be incorporated into a final report
expected April 13.
Preliminary information from the workshop indicates
that three cruise lines are currently piloting new
treatment technologies or optimizing their existing
treatment technologies on one vessel each. We've
learned that there are land-based treatment systems
that could potentially be adapted for use on cruise
ships, but the lead time to bring them to an
operational phase could be approximately two years.
The steps include: design pilot technology to fit on
a cruise ship; obtain necessary vessel classification
system approvals to use a new system; build and
deliver system to the vessel; install and test system;
conduct necessary monitoring and system adjustments;
and then, if successful, adapt the system for use on
other vessels.
1:33:28 PM
Existing Regulations
DEC has existing regulations that allow a wastewater
discharge permittee to apply for a mixing zone with
their permit. The regulations include a 19 part test
that must be met before DEC can authorize a mixing
zone, including:
That the effluent is first treated to remove, reduce
and disperse the pollutants using the most effective,
technologically and economically feasible methods.
The anti-degradation policy also requires the use of
"methods of pollution prevention, control, and
treatment found by the department to be the most
effective and reasonable" and that wastes and other
substances to be discharged "be treated and controlled
to achieve ... the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements."
If mixing zones were allowed, DEC would modify the
cruise ship wastewater discharge general permit to
include mixing zones where appropriate. Any proposed
permit modifications would require a public review.
Mixing zones may be prohibited in some areas and would
only be allowed in other areas and under conditions
that would fully protect aquatic life and other uses
of Alaska's waters.
The modified permit would still require use of best
available treatment technologies. Existing water
quality regulations prohibit backsliding in treatment
technology or decreases in effluent quality.
Every five years when the general permit is renewed,
DEC must reevaluate what comprises best available
treatment technologies. Renewed permits are modified
to reflect any new, commercially available treatment
technologies.
Fiscal Impact - HB 134 has no fiscal impact for the
Department.
1:36:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether DEC would still monitor at the
point of discharge should HB 134 pass and allow mixing zones.
MS. KENT answered that most of the permits issued by the
department for a mixing zone require that monitoring occur at
the point of discharge and at the edge of the mixing zone, so
DEC would likely use this same approach.
1:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked for a description of the size
and shape of a mixing zone behind a cruise ship.
MS. KENT responded that studies by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) found that when a vessel is underway there is no
mixing zone that would show on a map or behind the vessel
because the effluent mixes so quickly while the vessel is
moving. The DEC studies conducted last summer on moored vessels
in Skagway found that the mixing zone tends to look like a long
ribbon, depending on what the tide is doing. A mixing zone in a
river would go immediately downstream, she continued. Mixing
zones authorized in marine waters from shore-based facilities
often go two directions because of the tides.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired where the monitoring crew
would be located behind the ship to take the measurement.
MS. KENT replied that DEC would not likely require monitoring of
a mixing zone behind a vessel that is underway because nothing
would be found to measure. Monitoring is more appropriate for a
vessel that is moored, provided the ship is moored in a
situation where DEC could authorize a mixing zone.
1:39:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG understood that DEC is currently
monitoring at the discharge pipe when a ship is underway. He
surmised that if HB 134 is passed, DEC would no longer monitor a
ship at the discharge pipe while it is underway and would
instead only monitor a mixing zone when the ship is in port.
MS. KENT answered that the permit would likely still require
monitoring at the point of discharge because the effluent limits
in the permit apply there. If DEC could authorize a mixing zone
for a moored vessel, monitoring would be required at the edge of
the mixing zone for the Water Quality Standards. In further
response, Ms. Kent said the permit for a moored vessel might
describe the mixing zone in the shape of an oval.
1:40:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referenced the 4 percent discharge
exceedance [for ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc that occurred
in 2008 from large vessels]. He presumed that if mixing zones
were allowed there would not have been any exceedance because no
matter how much the current standards were exceeded the mixing
zone would take care it.
MS. KENT responded that if DEC were to authorize a mixing zone,
those levels would likely be allowed while a vessel is underway.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the 4 percent exceedance
would have been acceptable for the mixing zone of a moored
vessel.
MS. KENT replied that calculations would have to be done in
order to answer that question; the department would have to have
the permit with an authorized mixing zone to know whether or not
those would be in exceedance.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Ms. Kent to provide information on how
all vessels are treated, not just cruise ships, when she next
appears before the committee.
MS. KENT agreed to do so.
1:42:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Ms. Kent to list the Water Quality
Standards from the most stringent to the least.
MS. KENT explained that the Water Quality Standards are set
parameter by parameter by the use. For example, a water quality
standard for copper for fresh water may be less stringent for
drinking water purposes than the copper standard for aquatic
life use. This is because humans are more resistant to copper,
and drinking it, than are fish. In further response, Ms. Kent
said she would need to pull up the Water Quality Standards [to
outline the Water Quality Standards for copper from the most to
least stringent]. She said she would get back to members with
this information.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether any permits have been
declined and for what reasons.
MS. KENT answered that DEC generally works with the applicant to
ensure that an application is submitted that will meet the
department's requirements and be able to be permitted. Projects
that do not meet the requirements are few and do not happen and
DEC does not keep records of that. The applicant usually finds
a way to meet DEC's standards. In further response, she said
she would get back to the committee with an example of a
declined permit.
1:45:30 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
ALBERT JUDSON stated that he disagrees with HB 134 and hopes it
will be eliminated from the legislative process. He posed the
question, "What would happen if the Environmental Protection
Agency reversed their decision of 1973 when they exempted vessel
discharges requiring a federal permit?"
MR. JUDSON offered six considerations, the first being a
historical consideration. He said HB 134 was introduced by
Republican representatives at the request of the cruise ship
industry. It would delete language in the 2006 initiative
approved by Alaska voters, that language being "at the point of
discharge". A major conference was held in the 1990s, he
further recalled, to address the wastewater and air pollution
that was being generated by cruise ships in Alaska. Eventually,
a cruise ship program was established with the DEC.
MR. JUDSON said the second consideration is that the Alaska
initiative process is very strict. The 2006 initiative
satisfied all of the requirements, was certified by the
lieutenant governor, the people voted for it, and it became law.
He said the reasons for the "at the point of discharge"
requirement include the mobility of the ships, the areas that
they travel, and that thousands of people travel on one large
ship, sometimes as many as 5,000.
1:49:28 PM
MR. JUDSON related that the third consideration is that the
cruise ship industry has until 2010 to comply with the 2006
initiative, and technological advancements have already occurred
and more are likely to occur. Eventual compliance is not
impossible because the cruise ship industry is a billion dollar
trade. A fourth consideration is that the impact on harbors and
docks has yet to be determined and grievances have been
occurring due to inadequate space for Alaskans. The fifth
consideration is that dumping by cruise ships in mixing zones
would conflict with the commercial and subsistence efforts of
Alaska people.
MR. JUDSON said the sixth consideration is that Alaskans are
confronting the negative impacts of these large ships as
portrayed in the February 15, 2009, "New York Times" article by
Jennifer Conlin: cruise ships emit twice the carbon dioxide as
airplanes; most ships use cheap and dirty bunker fuel; and a
one-week voyage produces 210,000 gallons of sewage, a million
gallons of gray water, 25,000 gallons of bilge water, 11,550
gallons of sewage sludge, and more than 13,000 gallons of
hazardous waste.
1:51:56 PM
LEN LAURANCE, spoke on behalf of Alaska RainForest Sanctuary,
Seahorse Ventures, and Taquan Air located in Ketchikan and
Alaska Canopy Adventures located in Juneau and Ketchikan. He
testified in favor of HB 134 as follows:
The tours offered by these businesses are pre-sold
aboard cruise ships. The four shore excursion
operators employ over 150 persons. The wastewater
standards of passenger cruise vessels that are
scheduled to go into effect in 2010 will require these
ships to go to sea to discharge, resulting in one less
port call in Alaska. This is because the upcoming
standards for these wastewaters are technically not
achievable at this time. The average cruise ship
makes three-and-a-half port calls on a seven day
cruise. The major ports are Juneau, Skagway, and
Ketchikan. The half port call is mostly a short stop
in Victoria, B.C., to satisfy Jones Act requirements.
The deletion of a full Alaska port call would be
devastating to shore excursion providers, resulting in
loss of jobs, local sales and property taxes, and a
general economic downturn in communities that are
hurting from declining populations. The wastewater
standards for cruise ships should be established
scientifically, not by legislation. I have been
involved in Alaska tourism on a statewide and local
level for over 40 years. ... There should not be
relief for increased wastewater discharge standards
for cruise ships, it will be the most negative thing
to impact Alaska tourism during that entire time,
including 911. I urge you to pass HB 134.
1:54:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Mr. Laurance's opinion on
the discharge of pollution would change if a solution could be
found that would not cause cruise ships to spend less time in
port or miss a port call.
MR. LAURANCE responded yes. He said he believes the standards
should be established by DEC because the department is familiar
with the latest technology and can scientifically apply whatever
technology is available at that time.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested that Ms. Kent explain the standards
and how DEC meets and evaluates them at the next hearing.
1:55:04 PM
SHAUNA LEE, Tour Manager, The Great Alaska Lumberjack Show,
offered her support for HB 134. She spoke as follows:
The cruise ship industry has become a vital part of
life in Ketchikan. As fishing and logging have waned
over the years, the cruise industry has grown
exponentially and there is no arguing that it supports
many people and businesses here in Southeast. While
that growth has brought prosperity, it has also
brought the question of environmental impact to our
beautiful state. In response the cruise line industry
was very pro-active in bringing their ships up to the
highest standards possible and even exceeded the
standards that our own cities were held to. It was
unfortunate, then, that a simple mistake in wording
came to threaten the industry. With the passage of HB
134 we can put the burden of proof on the organization
best equipped to make those decisions that protect our
waters. The [Department of Environmental
Conservation's] function is to set standards and to be
a watchdog for those standards. Let them do their
job. The initial sponsors of the bill said that they
wanted to even the playing field in regard to cruise
ship discharge and HB 134 would do just that. I urge
you to pass [HB] 134 and put the decisions regarding
cruise ship emission standards into the hands of those
best equipped and best informed.
1:56:29 PM
BOB WEINSTEIN, Mayor, City and Borough of Ketchikan, said he
would like to address the amendment to the bill that he
understands will be proposed today.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN replied that amendments will not be proposed or
addressed until after public testimony when committee discussion
occurs. In further response to Mayor Weinstein, Co-Chair Neuman
said the mayor is welcome to call back at that time.
MAYOR WEINSTEIN stated that the City of Ketchikan supports HB
134, as written. He said the city feels that science, not
politics, should govern the standards regulating pollution of
any kind.
1:57:32 PM
STACY STUDEBAKER, Conservation Chair, Kodiak Audubon Society,
noted that she is a biologist and retired science teacher who
has lived in Alaska for nearly 40 years. She said the Kodiak
Audubon Society was established in 1982 and its mission is to
"conserve Alaska's natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other
wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit and enjoyment of
current and future generations." She testified as follows in
opposition to HB 134 and suggested an amendment:
Kodiak has been receiving more interest from the
cruise ship industry recently with 24 to 27 visits
scheduled for this year. That is nearly double what
we had just a few years ago. As cruise ships enter
our waters that support our fishery economy, we must
hold them to the strictest standards for water
quality. Cruise ships will come and go but our
fishery economy is what sustains us. If we are going
to give ... the cruise ship industry the benefit of
visiting our beautiful island, then they need to
reciprocate by investing in better onboard technology
that ensures that their wastewater doesn't pollute our
marine ecosystem and jeopardize our seafood industry.
We oppose HB 134. The bill is premature and
unnecessary. If it passes it removes the ban on
mixing zones and would allow harmful pollutants from
cruise ship wastewater, such as copper and ammonia, to
be directly discharged into marine waters. Research
has identified copper as specifically affecting
salmon. Given the nature of the main pollutants
associated with cruise ship operations, such as
metals, it is imperative that these discharges are
regulated and that every effort is made to minimize
discharge directly into the marine environment so that
our seafood remains safe to eat and our marine food
chain is intact for all marine life. Mixing zones are
rules that allow for pollutants to be discharged
directly into the environment and diluted before water
quality is tested. Mixing zones are not science-
based. They are engineering-based, risk analyses that
assume that organisms will either not be present when
the discharge occurs, not be harvested and consumed,
or represent a small enough percentage of the
population as to not result in long-term harm to the
environment or people. When the water you are
impacting supports the food you eat, the base of your
economy, and the habitat of wildlife, mixing zones are
unacceptable.
2:00:10 PM
The cruise ship initiative was passed by a majority
vote of the people in 2006 with the intent to protect
water quality from the harmful impacts of cruise ship
wastewater pollution. In a recent poll conducted by
Anchorage Channel 2 News, 81 percent of the
respondents asked if they think the state should
loosen wastewater regulations for cruise ships
answered no. The 2006 initiative was a major
milestone towards realizing the fundamental goals of
the Clean Water Act to protect our marine ecosystem
and the integrity and image of our Alaskan fishery
industry. The Alaska voter initiative created the
demand for a solution to the problem. Advancing
technology to deal with removing pollutants from
cruise ship wastewater either onboard or onshore. HB
134 would remove the incentive that is currently
driving these advances. The voter initiative created
the original deadline for cruise ships to meet the new
standards. We are in favor of extending the deadline
a year or two which would allow developers more time
to work on better and more innovative wastewater
methods to fit onboard ships. In the meantime cruise
ships must comply with existing laws.
2:01:45 PM
JENNANEVA PEARSON (ph) said she has lived in Kodiak since 1941
and lived in Ketchikan in 1939. She maintained that HB 134 is
jumping the gun because future technology will enable the cruise
ships to comply with the law as it was proposed and passed by
the people of Alaska. The legislature should honor the wishes
of the majority of the people of this state. "There is always
the way of doing things right and there is always ample funds
for achieving that goal," she said. She urged that this be
played out as the voters mandated.
2:02:55 PM
JENNIFER GIBBINS, Soundkeeper/Executive Director, Prince William
Soundkeeper, explained that her organization's board and members
are comprised of residents from Prince William Sound's five
communities and the organization's mission is to protect water
quality in the sound. She said she has a background in tourism
and destination marketing and serves on the Cordova Chamber of
Commerce. Ms. Gibbins spoke as follows in opposition to HB 134
and suggested an amendment:
In 2006 the voters voted to protect clean water, plain
and simple. Or, in this case, pure and simple. Clean
water is essential, not only to the region, but to the
state - to our environment, our culture, and our
economy. ... We depend on clean water, and the
cumulative impacts of the pollutants that are
associated with cruise ship wastewater are serious.
HB 134 does one thing - it removes the ban on mixing
zones and this is a very significant change and we
should not take this lightly. It will diminish the
quality of the environment and it will allow
pollutants to be directly discharged into the marine
environment. And how you can argue that that is
neither significant nor serious, I don't know.
... Why do we need this law? Because, unfortunately,
the cruise industry has shown us that they need the
incentive of law to protect water quality. And the
cruise industry itself has acknowledged that the
current law has been the driving force for technology
advancement. I've spoken with folks trying to ...
make sure that I'm understanding everything properly
here. I've spoken to some of the folks involved in
the report that was commissioned by DEC, and I've
asked them what's the bottom line. Is this or is this
not possible? And they said it is possible,
technology is advancing, it's possible, we just need a
little more time. So, let's not throw the baby out
with the gray water here. Let's do something that is
actually quite simple - extend the deadline and we can
realize the goal as the voters intended, which is to
protect water quality. ... HB 134 does absolutely
nothing to enhance DEC's ability to make science-based
decisions. If you want science-based decisions, then
ask a biologist, don't ask the cruise industry.
2:06:11 PM
CAROLINE HIGGINS, Chair, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
testified in favor of HB 134 as follows:
The state chamber membership has adopted as one of our
top legislative priorities support for changes to the
point of discharge standard govern ring cruise ship
wastewater permitting. The state chamber urges the
adoption of HB 134 which deletes the point of
discharge standard governing the cruise ship
wastewater permits. HB 134 simply fixes a mistake
made in the original language. The state chamber ...
asks the state to apply the best available data and
technology when setting standards for cruise ship
wastewater discharge permits. The Alaska State
Department of Environmental Conservation holds not
only cruise ships, but also ships such as our state
ferries, to a different standard than it holds every
other discharger in Alaska. This new permit measures
effluent at the point of discharge instead of allowing
a dilution zone, which every state in the United
States allows and the State of Alaska statutes
contemplate. This is a different standard from what
is required for coastal communities, the fishing
industry, or oil platforms in Cook Inlet.
We strongly urge the legislature to give due
consideration to modifying the standards governing the
discharge of cruise ship wastewater for a lower level
based on science that will continue to protect aquatic
life and the environment, but will not be
technologically and financially unreasonable or
impractical. Should the cruise ship industry need to
comply with the statutes of this permit, the ships
will have to hold their wastewater discharges until
they are out of Alaska waters. Not only will this
shorten time in port, but will likely result in fewer
ports of call.
2:08:32 PM
Both results will negatively impact Alaska businesses
and financially harm port communities. Small
businesses that offer services to tour-related
companies may well go out of business without these
suggested changes. Alaska's Water Quality Standards
contemplate the use of dilution factors such as mixing
zones or short-term variances. According to ADEC,
mixing zones are provided for in the Clean Water Act
and used by every state in the nation. Without mixing
zones wastewater would have to be treated to the point
where it could serve as a source of drinking water
before being discharged, and that is just not feasible
here or anywhere else. Sewage treatment plants and
seafood processors in Alaska could not operate without
a mixing zone and this is also true for the cruise
ships. Alaska should hold cruise ships to the same
stringent standards as its coastal communities. It is
not in the state's best interest to shorten the time
cruise visitor's have ashore or to force the
elimination of some ports of call. State Chamber
urges you vote favorably on HB 134.
2:09:42 PM
JOHN BINKLEY, President, Alaska Cruise Association, began by
asking the question, "What was the will of the people when they
passed [the 2006] initiative?" He said the initiative was
primarily about the head tax issue. However, the environmental
aspects of the initiative can best be described by quoting two
of the initiative's sponsors during that time. He quoted Dr.
Gershon Cohen of Campaign to Safeguard America's Waters as
having said, "If passed, the new initiative will level the
economic and environmental playing field between the cruise ship
industry and other major dischargers of polluted wastes into
Alaska waters." He quoted attorney Joe Geldhof as having said,
"This would make the cruise industry adhere to the same
pollution standards as fisheries, municipalities, and gas and
oil companies." Few people look at the nuances of technical
law, Mr. Binkley maintained, and Alaska voters relied on the
initiative's authors to be straight with them as to what the
initiative meant.
2:11:58 PM
MR. BINKLEY said HB 134 would fix the initiative that was passed
and make the law adhere to what the initiative's sponsors told
the people of Alaska. The bill would let DEC's scientists
decide these complicated and difficult issues, he continued.
The department is the best equipped to protect the marine
environment, aquatic life, and human health. The tried and true
permitting process has been in place for many years and is an
open public process.
MR. BINKLEY argued that the will of the people is also expressed
by the 44 resolutions passed by communities and organizations
around the state, including the Alaska Municipal League which
represents all elected municipalities in the state of Alaska.
He related that just prior to the 2006 initiative vote, the
Anchorage Daily News advised that the initiative had problems
but urged voters to pass it and then rely on the legislature to
fix the problems. This is one of those problems, he said. The
legislature fixed the other two problems, one of which was to
exempt the Alaska Marine Highway and small cruise ships from the
initiative's requirements and the other of which was a
disclosure requirement. He urged that HB 134 be passed
unamended.
2:14:11 PM
KAREN HESS, Owner, River Adventures, supported HB 134. She
spoke as follows:
I believe that [HB 134] is the most logical and
reasonable position for the legislature to take to
correct a gross injustice that was caused by the
initiative. When Ballot Measure 2 came for a vote of
the people and the voter pamphlet was distributed to
Alaskans, there was a statement that was prepared by
the ADEC that simply stated, "The initiative would
require DEC to develop and maintain a new permit
program for large commercial passenger vessels to
replace the current program for regulating these
vessels." However, several pages later it also stated
that the cruise lines must meet standards at the point
of discharge. These five words virtually took the
power away from DEC to regulate as the initiative
itself was the regulating document after it was passed
and became law. One would have to have looked up ...
on the Internet or somewhere to find the Alaska Water
Quality Standards to know the full extent of those
five words. If the intent was for DEC to develop and
maintain a permit program, then I ask you today to
pass HB 134 to give DEC the tools to make permitting
decisions.
2:16:01 PM
MS. HESS quoted a statement written by initiative sponsors that
was in the voter pamphlet: "The cruise lines are 'selling'
Alaska - while impacting our docks, roads, public facilities,
wildlife, and quality of our lives. This initiative will do
nothing to turn visitors away; it will keep our tourism industry
sustainable while protecting the needs of all Alaskans." She
warned that one ship has already been pulled from Alaska in 2010
and more will follow if this is not fixed. This is not
sustaining the tourism industry and will negatively impact
Alaskan's quality of life. She continued:
In 2006 I believe that the voters passed the
initiative simply because it was labeled as a cruise
ship head tax. I trust DEC to protect the environment
and regulate the cruise industry accordingly, and I
trust you, our legislators, to protect our economic
environment. I ask you to help sustain the tourism
industry by passing HB 134 out of your committee
today, unamended.
2:17:18 PM
MICHAEL RICHARDS noted that he is a CPA and member of the
Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, but that he is speaking for
himself. He said that when the tourism industry is economically
healthy in Southeast Alaska, it is also economically healthy in
Fairbanks. While he does not think the cruise ship that pulled
out for 2010 did so because of the current law, he said he does
think that the current law is one more barrier that could cause
cruise ships to think twice about coming to Alaska and instead
go where fewer costs will be incurred. He related that many of
the clients at his CPA firm derive their businesses from tourism
and he has seen that tourism trickles down even to the corner
coffee shop. He said a decrease in tourism will affect all
businesses and industries; he therefore supports HB 134 because
it is good for all of Alaska's economy.
2:18:58 PM
DEB HICKOK, President, CEO, Fairbanks Convention and Business
Bureau, testified in favor of HB 134 as follows:
The board of directors of the Fairbanks Convention and
Business Bureau did pass a resolution on January 12,
[2009], which advocates a modification of the point of
discharge permit established by the passage of the
cruise ship ballot initiative in 2006. The Fairbanks
Convention and Business Bureau was the twenty-seventh
of the forty-four communities and organizations to
pass similar resolutions. Why is Fairbanks weighing
in? Well, Cruiseland Tours makes about 50 percent of
the summer visitation to Fairbanks, so any cruise
industry issue is one of ours and any Alaskan issue is
one of ours. We sell the pristine environment of
Alaska; that is part of our product. HB 134 ...
allows the experts at DEC to impose the most
environmentally effective and the most scientifically
possible standards for discharge. DEC's work is
impressive. They are the experts. Please let them do
their job and approve HB 134.
2:20:18 PM
CHERYL METIVA, Executive Director, CEO, Greater Wasilla Chamber
of Commerce, said the chamber fully supports HB 134 and has
passed a resolution in support of the bill. The cruise industry
is a viable cornerstone to tourism in the state, she continued.
The industry has exceeded all expectations in fulfilling its
commitment to provide top quality wastewater at point of exit.
The chamber's board of directors visited a number of cruise
ships this past summer, she noted, and the directors were
extremely impressed with what they found. She urged that DEC be
allowed to provide the tools and expertise to fulfill the
requirements. Currently, no community in Alaska could meet the
same end-of-the-pipe standards that are being required of the
cruise ships. It would be unrealistic and cost prohibitive to
require communities to come up to these same standards. The
cruise ship industry is being required to take actions that no
other community, citizen, or business could afford to take.
2:22:23 PM
ROGER MAYNARD noted that he works summers in the tourism
industry. He related that according to Alaska Department of
Labor & Workforce Development statistics, the total income of
Haines is about $98 million per year and the cruise industry
accounts for about $4.4 million or about 4.5 percent of the
income for the Haines Borough. Haines receives most of its
cruise ship passengers via shuttle from Skagway, he continued.
The tourists that come to Haines devote four to five hours to
the whole process of taking the tours. If HB 134 does not pass,
and the cruise ships cannot meet the standards, they will leave
Alaska's waters to dump their effluent in federal waters. This
would result in shorter port times. Shorter port times in
Skagway would mean that visitors would no longer have time to
come to Haines for tours. In this case, the Skagway shuttle
ferry would likely cease to exist, which would cause a complete
collapse of the cruise ship tourist industry in Haines. He
urged that HB 134 be passed to fix the mistake that was made in
the Alaska statutes. The Water Quality Standards remain the
same and there would be no major difference other than allowing
the cruise ships to continue to operate in Alaska. The bill
does not preclude DEC from making the standard higher as the
technology and the science show that it is available.
2:24:51 PM
CHIP THOMA, Responsible Cruising Alaska, said his advocacy group
helped win passage of the 2006 initiative on cruise ship
pollution, fair taxes, and consumer protection. The law has
been a great success in all of these regards. He said the
reason he is involved in this issue is because salmon and whales
all feed in and migrate through the exact same areas for which
mixing zones are being proposed - and mixing zones are pollution
zones. He continued:
Regarding HB 134, un-amended, my initial comment is
that this legislation is premature and unnecessary.
Many ships in the Alaskan cruise fleet are already
meeting our Water Quality Standards on both ammonia
and copper, those discharged substances that most harm
salmon and other marine life. Most ships need only
make a few attachments and adjustments to their
present systems to make them fully legal and fully
compliant with the 2010 law.
... I recently reviewed the Notices of Violations
issued by DEC for the 2008 cruise ship discharges and
was amazed to find that three-quarters of the fleet
were not cited for any metals violations, but five of
the seven metals violations are with one of the cruise
lines - Princess. I believe the copper problem has
now been identified. Those high metal discharges are
centered in older ships, like the Princess fleet,
whose copper plumbing is leaching into treated
discharge water. Dissolved copper is a big problem.
It never goes away, it builds up in the water, and
disorients returning salmon. ... Most other ships
have solved their onboard copper problems by using
flex hose plastic plumbing.... However, suspended
metals removal technology is improving at a very rapid
pace, pioneered by the need for absolutely clean water
in U.S. computer manufacture. I'm confident that
copper can soon be removed from all cruise ship
discharges. ... Regarding ammonia, the sole source is
urine and that technology is also readily
available.... I am also very confident these problems
can be solved onboard as most ships in the fleet are
doing now.
... The cruise passengers want clean ships. Alaskan
subsistence, commercial, and sport users want clean
ships that take no chances to harm state fish and
wildlife and marine resources. We should all agree to
fully protect clean marine waters by statute. The
cruise laws passed in 2006 accomplish that. However,
HB 134, unamended, rolls back those protections and
allows potentially harmful discharges. Also, [HB] 134
primarily exempts one cruise line from the water
quality standards being met by most of the 28 ships in
the Alaska fleet. HB 134 would financially penalize
ships that make discharge improvements and now comply
with Alaska cruise law. And finally, Alaskans want
these discharge problems solved, either onboard the
cruise ships or at onshore plants, but not by mixing
in our pristine waters.
2:31:13 PM
KATE TROLL, Executive Director, Alaska Conservation Alliance,
explained that her organization is an umbrella group of 40
member groups representing about 38,000 Alaskans. She said she
is opposed to HB 134 as drafted, but would like to suggest an
amendment. Given that her two children financed their college
educations by working summers for the cruise industry and her
inclination to find solutions that work for economic development
and protecting the environment, Ms. Troll said she was pleased
when John Binkley requested a meeting with her. In that
meeting, Mr. Binkley explained the dilemma regarding the ammonia
and copper standards and the performance records of various
cruise ships. However, it was clear that advancements were
being made. Based on that conversation, she related, she told
Mr. Binkley she would be interested in looking at language that
he might propose to fix the copper and ammonia problem. She
said she was therefore surprised that instead of a surgical fix
to deal with the ammonia and copper, HB 134 proposes to go back
to the old water quality standard of "the solution to pollution
is dilution".
2:33:40 PM
MS. TROLL said she does not believe that voters wanted to go
back to that standard when they passed the cruise ship
initiative. Voters are fully aware that dilution is still
pollution, she maintained, and Alaska's waters and world-class
marine resources deserve better. She said she feels that Alaska
still needs this law. According to DEC's website, she related,
it can take one to two years to go from the stage of
characterizing the cruise ship's effluent to having a system
installed and working correctly. The consultants say that
vessel operators may be able to achieve the standards of the
cruise ship initiative through adaptation of existing shore-
based technology, new combination of multiple systems that each
eliminates one or more chemicals, or shore-based discharge
facilities, she continued. In other words, the law is working
to spur innovation, so why backtrack now? As a solution, Ms.
Troll suggested that Section 2 be amended by moving the
effective date back to 2012. This would honor the intent of the
cruise ship initiative and accommodate the needs of the cruise
ship industry, she said.
2:35:49 PM
JEREMY WOODROW, Communications Coordinator, Alaska Municipal
League, presented testimony as follows:
The Alaska Municipal League is in favor of HB 134 as
it stands today. The AML is troubled in this time of
economic downturn with standards imposed on cruise
ships that seem to be ahead of technology and which
only lead to cruise ships taking their business
elsewhere and leaving a large financial gap in the
budget of many coastal communities. At our annual
local government conference in Ketchikan last
November, AML passed Resolution 2009-08, a resolution
urging the state to modify the standards governing the
discharge of cruise ship wastewater such that those
standards will continue to protect aquatic life and
the environment. While those of us in local
government obviously do not wish to pollute the place
we call home, we believe there should be some
flexibility on the part of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation as they enforce policies
intended to maintain Alaska's healthy ports and
harbors. However, as the law now reads, the cruise
ships will most likely not be able to conform to the
ever-tightening regulations set under the current
timeframe. The AML strongly believes that healthy
municipalities need healthy business and industry. We
would like to work with DEC and with the cruise ship
industry to make sure that cruise ships feel welcome
while yet helping us maintain clean water in our
coastal communities.
2:37:25 PM
SHELLY WRIGHT, Executive Director, Southeast Conference,
testified in support of HB 134 as follows:
Southeast Conference is the Alaska regional
development organization for Southeast Alaska. We are
designated as the economic development district by the
U.S. Economic Development Administration. We are also
the governing board of Southeast Alaska's Resource
Conservation and Development Council. We are a
membership organization and our members include local
governments, visitors bureaus, chambers of commerce,
as well as local businesses, agencies, and individuals
- all interested in clean water and commerce and
economic development in Southeast Alaska. Our mission
is to undertake and support ... activities that
promote strong economies, healthy communities, and a
quality environment in Southeast Alaska. As part of
that mission we encourage responsible development of
Southeast's economy and preserving the environmental
quality. Our members are very concerned about water
quality, and support the level of standards determined
and enforced by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. It is our belief that the standards for
the cruise vessels should be determined by science and
the expertise of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation. We urge you to let them
do their job as they have been doing so well for so
many years.
2:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether any fishing
organizations are involved in the Southeast Conference.
MS. Wright said the conference has a fisheries committee
comprised of several different fishing entities and fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether this fisheries
committee has made any recommendations in regard to HB 134 that
are different than Ms. Wright's testimony.
MS. WRIGHT responded that nothing was reflected to her by
members during the vetting process of her testimony, but that is
not to say there is not someone out there.
2:40:17 PM
CHRISTOPHER KRENZ, Ph.D., Oceana, explained that his
organization is an international ocean conservation group with
two offices and 11 staff in Alaska. The staff represents over
250 years of life experience in Alaska, he added. He said
Oceana opposes HB 134 as written. He testified as follows:
Cruise ships bring a large number of people to Alaska
each year. They enjoy a lot of what Alaska has to
offer. They bring enormous benefits to the state as
well. They also produce a lot of waste and that is
obviously the issue here. A lot has been made about
science and letting science lead the way. I think it
is important to clarify that science can tell you what
is a healthy level and what is not. It is a policy
decision as far as where the level needs to be met and
here it is the policy decision of whether or not one
wants a mixing zone or to monitor pollutants at the
... tailpipe.
Dilution, we know, is not the solution; we've learned
this over and over again from many places throughout
the world. Basically, a mixing zone is an area that
does not meet standards ... that are given by DEC. It
is an area of a polluted water. And, in terms of
cruise ships, this basically leaves ... opening for
... moving pollution zones that would basically follow
the cruise ships around....
[HB 134] would amend the initiative and is basically
taking a hatchet where a scalpel may be more
appropriate. ... Oceana believes it is important to
maintain incentives. There is promising new
technology out there that we have heard about and we
are concerned especially about the copper.... We know
that it affects organisms from the microscopic algae
that feed larger animals, including all the way up to
salmon. ... For salmon, it may affect their sense of
smell; migration is dependent on that sense of smell.
It affects other aspects of salmon as well at non-
lethal levels, including their immune response....
2:43:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the "new technologies"
being mentioned by the various witnesses are actually new
technology or just engineering problems that are being solved.
DR. KRENZ replied that he was unable to attend the recent
conference held by the Department of Environmental Conservation,
but he understood that the technology currently exists and the
issue is one of engineering and figuring out how to do it in an
economical way on a cruise ship.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN closed public testimony.
2:46:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS0570\E.2, Bullard, 3/2/09, which reads as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "waste water;"
Insert "wastewater, to wastewater, sewage, and
treatment projects in certain communities, including
shore-based wastewater treatment facilities that serve
commercial passenger vessels, and to the disposition
of proceeds of the excise tax levied on travel aboard
commercial passenger vessels;"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 43.52.230(a) is amended to read:
(a) The proceeds from the tax on travel on
commercial passenger vessels providing overnight
accommodations in the state's marine water shall be
deposited in a special ["] commercial vessel passenger
tax account ["] in the general fund. The legislature
may appropriate money from this account for the
purposes described in (b) - (d) [AND (c)] of this
section, for state-owned port and harbor facilities,
other services to properly provide for vessel or
watercraft visits, to enhance the safety and
efficiency of interstate and foreign commerce, to
plan, design, build, modify, construct, or
rehabilitate wastewater and sewage systems and
treatment works, and [SUCH] other lawful purposes as
determined by the legislature.
* Sec. 2. AS 43.52.230 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(d) The legislature may appropriate up to 50
percent of the money deposited into the commercial
vessel passenger tax account to the Department of
Environmental Conservation for planning, designing,
building, modifying, constructing, or rehabilitating
wastewater and sewage systems and treatment works in
ports of call in which commercial passenger vessels
load or unload passengers to ensure that untreated
sewage, treated sewage, graywater, and other
wastewater generated by the community and treated
wastewater generated by commercial passenger vessels
is not discharged in a manner that violates any
applicable effluent limits or standards under state or
federal law, including Alaska Water Quality Standards
governing pollution at the point of discharge."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "The"
Insert "Except as provided under AS 46.03.464(a),
the [THE]"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "[AT THE POINT OF DISCHARGE]"
Insert "at the point of discharge"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 4. AS 46.03.462(b), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, is amended to read:
(b) The [EXCEPT AS PROVIDED UNDER
AS 46.03.464(a), THE] minimum standard terms and
conditions for all discharge permits authorized under
this section require that the owner or operator
(1) may not discharge untreated sewage,
treated sewage, graywater, or other wastewaters in a
manner that violates any applicable effluent limits or
standards under state or federal law, including Alaska
Water Quality Standards governing pollution at the
point of discharge;
(2) shall maintain records and provide the
reports required under AS 46.03.465(a);
(3) shall collect and test samples as
required under AS 46.03.465(b) and (d) and provide the
reports with respect those samples required by
AS 46.03.475(c);
(4) shall report discharges in accordance
with AS 46.03.475(a);
(5) shall allow the department access to
the vessel at the time samples are taken under
AS 46.03.465 for purposes of taking the samples or for
purposes of verifying the integrity of the sampling
process; and
(6) shall submit records, notices, and
reports to the department in accordance with
AS 46.03.475(b), (d), and (e).
* Sec. 5. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 46.03.464. Shore-based wastewater treatment
facilities. (a) Notwithstanding AS 46.03.462(b)(1),
the Department of Environmental Conservation may
provide a waiver effective July 1, 2011, through
June 30, 2013, from the point of discharge requirement
imposed under that paragraph for a discharge of
treated wastewater from a commercial passenger vessel
that is capable of discharging treated wastewater to a
shore-based wastewater treatment facility. The waiver
may be extended for an additional two-year period if
(1) not later than July 1, 2013, at least
one shore-based wastewater treatment facility becomes
fully operational; and
(2) as a condition of the waiver, while
present in a community with a shore-based wastewater
treatment facility to load or unload passengers, the
vessel discharges its treated wastewater to the
facility.
(b) A waiver granted under (a) of this section
may be extended for an additional two-year period if,
during the previous two years,
(1) at least one additional shore-based
wastewater treatment facility becomes fully
operational; and
(2) as a condition of the waiver, while
present in a community with a shore-based wastewater
treatment facility to load or unload passengers, the
vessel discharges its treated wastewater to the
facility.
(c) In this section, "shore-based wastewater
treatment facility" means a wastewater treatment
facility located in a community in which commercial
passenger vessels load or unload passengers that
(1) does not violate any applicable
effluent limits or standards under state or federal
law, including Alaska Water Quality Standards
governing pollution at the point of discharge; and
(2) is capable of receiving discharges of
treated wastewater from commercial passenger vessels.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.03.464 is repealed.
* Sec. 7. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
CONDITIONAL EFFECT OF SECS. 4 AND 6. (a) Sections
4 and 6 of this Act take effect only if, not later
than June 30, 2020,
(1) a court of competent jurisdiction
enters a final judgment on the merits that is no
longer subject to appeal or petition for certiorari
holding that the excise tax levied on travel aboard
commercial passenger vessels under AS 43.52.200 is
unconstitutional; or
(2) AS 43.52.200 is repealed.
(b) If the excise tax is found unconstitutional
as described in (a) (1) of this section, the attorney
general shall promptly notify the revisor of statutes,
the commissioner of environmental conservation, and
the commissioner of revenue of the date that the
excise tax was found unconstitutional.
* Sec. 8. Sections 3 and 5 of this Act take effect
January 1, 2011.
* Sec. 9. If, under sec. 7 of this Act, secs. 4 and
6 of this Act take effect, they take effect on the
earlier of the date
(1) a court of competent jurisdiction
enters a final judgment on the merits that is no
longer subject to appeal or petition for certiorari
holding that the excise tax levied on travel aboard
commercial passenger vessels under AS 43.52.200 is
unconstitutional; or
(2) AS 43.52.200 is repealed.
* Sec. 10. Except as provided in secs. 8 and 9 of
this Act, this Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that Amendment 1 is almost like
another bill, thus he will query committee members later as to
how they would like to proceed.
2:47:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to amend Amendment 1 as follows:
Page 3, line 12, after "effective"
Delete "July 1, 2011"
Insert "January 1, 2010"
Page 4, line 19, after "January 1,"
Delete "2011"
Insert "2010"
2:48:57 PM
There being no objection to the amendment to Amendment 1, the
amendment to the amendment was passed.
Amendment 1, as amended, was now before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he shares the sponsor's desire "to
enforce high quality standards and continue to develop
technology that will allow ships to have the cleanest possible
discharges". He related that the DEC technology conference
found that technologies are available to meet these standards
and these standards are being met on land-based systems in other
parts of the U.S. However, the problem is converting and
squeezing these systems onto a passenger vessel. Amendment 1
would instead convert the municipal systems at the ports of call
to meet the end-of-the-pipe standards and these municipal
systems would receive the cruise ship discharges for treatment.
2:51:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON further explained that Amendment 1 would
provide for up to 50 percent of the current head tax to be
allocated for sequential upgrades of sewage facilities at the
ports of call. Once the upgrades were on line, the cruise ships
would be required to discharge to those municipal facilities.
Thus, Amendment 1 would provide for meeting the standards
without imposing any further taxes or requiring major vessel
modifications. The waiver provision in Amendment 1 would be
through 2013 to provide enough time for design and construction
of the first community facility and sequentially for two years
after that. The waiver would stay in place as long as progress
is being made.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he did not see where there is a gain with
Amendment 1 as far as discharge quality. He asked that
Representative Seaton get reports from the communities that
would be affected as to how Amendment 1 would affect them and
what it would cost them. Co-Chair Neuman pointed out that in
Juneau it is common to have six or seven ships in port at one
time and this would be a tremendous amount of effluent for a
community to deal with at once.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that Amendment 1 would allocate
up to 50 percent of monies from the existing cruise ship
passenger head tax to upgrade municipal treatment facilities in
a sequential manner.
2:54:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON related that the head tax brought in $46
million in 2008. She noted that some communities in her
district have absolutely no system in place right now and waste
is dumped directly into the water. She drew attention to the
sixth to the last page in the committee packet which compares
what the cruise ship industry is being asked to do with what
seven communities are asked to do. She cited statistics from
the page that showed three communities are 100 times over the
level for copper that cruise ships are asked to do and the rest
of the other communities are over two times as much. For
nickel, there are no communities that meet the standard for
cruise ships. She cited several other standards. She cited
another statistic on the fifth to the last page that shows the
daily discharge from these same seven communities and one mine
is equivalent to the daily discharge of 388 cruise ships, and
these discharges are not meeting the standards being requested
of the cruise ships. Representative Wilson said she wants to
know how much it will cost communities to meet the requirements
of Amendment 1, especially for those communities that currently
have no waste system in place.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that taking money out of the state
budget to do this would impact schools, roads, and public safety
elsewhere in the state.
2:57:37 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested that the Department of Law address
whether the cruise ship tax can be used to pay 100 percent of
the cost for something that the cruise ships would only be using
50 percent of the year. If the tax cannot be used for 100
percent of the cost, then the cities would be liable for 50
percent of the cost, he surmised.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON countered that if this was the case, then
this same principal for proportional usage would have applied to
something like a dock, boardwalk, or other facility that has
been built and utilized by the cruise ship industry. He
therefore urged that this wastewater treatment proposal not be
singled out.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he would still like to hear from the
Department of Law in this regard.
2:59:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG added that he would also like to hear
from the Department of Law or Department of Commerce, Community,
& Economic Development about the current allocation of, and the
projected income from, the cruise ship head tax. He said he
would also like to hear from the Department of Environmental
Conservation as to whether there would be a problem in meeting
the requirements of Amendment 1 since the ships are already
meeting a higher standard than the communities; thus, the only
problem might be the capacity of community sanitary facilities.
3:00:17 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN held CSHB 134(CRA). He said that in the
meantime he will host a discussion between the various parties
in regard to Amendment 1.
3:01:00 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 134 (CRA) Resources Committee Pkg.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 amendment 26-LS0570.E.2.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134(CRA) Community Resolutions addressing Waste Water Permits.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |