Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/16/2009 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 16, 2009
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
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
03/02/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/02/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 134, answered
questions and provided information.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 134, answered
questions and provided information.
REINALDO GONZALEZ, Ph.D.
Associate Environmental Engineer
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company
Kansas City, MO
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 134, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:15:14 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Representatives Neuman,
Johnson, Olson, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Tuck, Kawasaki, Seaton, and
Wilson were present at the call to order.
HB 134-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
1:15:35 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).]
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the committee would continue discussion of
Amendment 1 which was offered by Representative Seaton at the
3/2/09 hearing, but not adopted. He noted that discussions have
occurred with Larry Hartig, Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), and that for the next hearing
the commissioner has agreed to come up with some proposals for
the technology-forcing aspect of HB 134.
1:17:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that the compliance date is fast
approaching and something needs to be done to ensure there is
progress toward water quality. The point of his amendments is
to keep the state moving in that direction while still allowing
the industry to function. He said he would like to offer either
an amendment to Amendment 1 or a substitute amendment in order
to make it available for public review.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN responded that under the committee's rules,
amendments must be given to members at least 24 hours in advance
of the hearing. Exceptions can sometimes be made for small
amendments, but this is a five-page amendment, he said.
1:19:35 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN read a portion of a March 12, 2009, letter from
Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein [original punctuation provided]:
Furthermore, I have tried - with little success to
date - to engage the initiative sponsors in a process
to sit down and develop a fair way of distributing the
proceeds of the passenger fees to benefit the ports of
call actually impacted by the ships and their
passengers and crews. I am still willing to do that.
I am not willing, however, to have them tell us what
ou[r] capital priorities should be.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said it bothers him that all the parties do not
appear to be reaching out to the communities that are affected
by this; however, the communities are talking to legislators.
He refused to accept Representative Seaton's amendment right
now, saying it is unfair to communities that will be impacted to
not have a chance to review the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that he is trying to have that same
conversation. If people are talking about an amendment with
provisions that will definitely be changed, then they are
commenting on past instead of current information. He said his
revised amendment will be posted on his website and is labeled
26-LS0570\E.3, Bullard, 3/16/09, should the public wish to
review it. He agreed not to move his amendment.
1:21:46 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated that Amendment 1 was not accepted at
the time it was offered for discussion and it might be more
appropriate to offer a substitute amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Amendment 1 and moved that the
committee adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-LS0570\E.3, Bullard,
3/16/09, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "waste water;"
Insert "wastewater; relating to wastewater,
sewage, and treatment projects in certain communities,
including shore-based wastewater treatment facilities
that serve commercial passenger vessels; and relating
to the regional cruise ship impact fund;"
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, 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 money
deposited into the regional cruise ship impact fund to
the Department of Environmental Conservation for
planning, designing, building, modifying,
constructing, or rehabilitating wastewater and sewage
systems and treatment works in a port of call in which
commercial passenger vessels load or unload passengers
to ensure that treated wastewater generated by
commercial passenger vessels, when combined with
untreated sewage, treated sewage, graywater, and other
wastewater generated by the community, 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 an annual waiver 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
additional one-year periods through December 31, 2013,
if
(1) the commissioner certifies that one or
more shore-based wastewater treatment facilities are
operational or in the process of being constructed;
and
(2) as a condition of the waiver, while
present in a community with an operational shore-based
wastewater treatment facility to load or unload
passengers, the vessel
(A) discharges its treated wastewater to
the facility; or
(B) complies with the terms and conditions
of AS 46.03.462(b)(1), notwithstanding the waiver
provided under this section.
(b) An annual waiver granted under (a) of this
section may be extended after December 31, 2013, for
additional one-year periods if
(1) the commissioner, after consultation
with representatives of the cruise ship industry and
communities in which commercial passenger vessels load
or unload passengers, certifies that additional shore-
based wastewater treatment facilities are
(A) necessary; and
(B) in the process of being constructed or
operated; and
(2) as a condition of the waiver, while
present in a community with an operational shore-based
wastewater treatment facility to load or unload
passengers, the vessel
(A) discharges its treated wastewater to
the facility;
(B) complies with the terms and conditions
of AS 46.03.462(b)(1), notwithstanding the waiver
provided under this section.
(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. TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The Department
of Environmental Conservation may proceed to adopt
regulations to implement its responsibilities under
this Act. The regulations take effect under AS 44.62
(Administrative Procedure Act), but not before the
effective date of the statutes implemented by the
regulations.
* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
NOTICE. If the excise tax is found
unconstitutional as described in sec. 9(1) of this
Act, 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. 9. Sections 4 and 6 of this Act take effect
on the earliest date of the following:
(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;
(2) AS 43.52.200 is repealed; or
(3) December 31, 2016.
* Sec. 10. Sections 3 and 5 of this Act take effect
January 1, 2010.
* Sec. 11. Except as provided in secs. 9 and 10 of
this Act, this Act takes effect immediately under
AS 01.10.070(c)."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected to Amendment 2.
1:24:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that Amendment 2 be tabled to provide the
public with time to review it and members the time to discuss it
and work through any problems by the next committee meeting.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed. He said he wants to ensure that
Commissioner Hartig has the time to work on a solution that the
commissioner feels will meet the goals of the 2006 Cruise Ship
Initiative ("the initiative"). He offered his opinion that DEC,
as the regulating authority on this issue, should take the lead.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested that committee members and
the public be given 24 hours to look at Amendment 2, as well as
any new amendment that may come back from Commissioner Hartig.
He said he would appreciate being able to walk through the
amendment and talk to regulators at DEC and beyond, as well as
the sponsors of HB 134 and the initiative sponsors.
1:27:43 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested an explanation of mixing zones.
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, deferred to Lynn Kent.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, explained that DEC first sets Water
Quality Standards under which specific numeric limits are
established for each type of contaminant. These limits are
designed to protect a use of a waterbody, she continued. For
example, DEC sets a numeric limit for copper that is designed to
protect human health for drinking water purposes. A numeric
limit for copper is also set for the protection of aquatic life.
The aquatic life standard is more stringent because aquatic life
is more sensitive to copper than are humans. Wastewater
discharge permits are based on the most stringent criteria,
which for copper is the criteria for aquatic life.
1:29:48 PM
MS. KENT noted that even with the best treatment technology,
treated wastewater discharge may still have low levels of
pollutants. A mixing zone is the area where treated wastewater
is allowed by DEC permit to mix with the waterbody. Mixing
zones are only authorized in the context of a permit, and all
DEC permits go through a public comment period. The regulations
that DEC has to consider when authorizing a mixing zone are
designed to protect aquatic life, among many other things, she
said. To authorize a mixing zone, DEC must make about 19
different findings via its regulations.
MS. KENT explained that under the first finding, DEC must
"ensure that the effluent is treated to remove, reduce, and
disperse pollutants using the most effective, technologically
and economically feasible methods, and at a minimum are
consistent with statutory and regulatory treatment
requirements." Other requirements that must be met before a
permit can be authorized include ensuring that a mixing zone:
is as small as practicable; will not impair the overall
biological integrity of a waterbody; will not preclude or limit
established processing activities and commercial, sport,
personal use or subsistence fisheries; will not result in any
reduction in fish or shellfish population levels; will not
affect endangered or threatened species, will not form a barrier
to migratory species, and will not contain bio-accumulative
contaminants.
1:31:53 PM
MS. KENT called attention to the division's fact sheet about
mixing zones provided in the committee packets. She said that
for shore-based seafood processing facilities operating under a
general permit, the mixing zone is for "residues, dissolved gas,
oil and grease, pH, color, turbidity, fecal coliform, chlorine,
and temperature." This permit defines a mixing zone in marine
waters as a "cylindrical volume with a horizontal radius of 100
feet from the diffuser and the full depth of the waterbody."
She pointed out that all of the Water Quality Standards that the
mixing zone is authorized for must be met at the edge of that
mixing zone.
MS. KENT discussed the mixing zone for the Mendenhall Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Juneau which discharges municipal wastewater
into the Mendenhall River. She said this mixing zone is for
"fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, pH, metals, and nutrients.
The mixing zone is defined as an area within a rectangle
centered over the diffuser with a width of 30 meters and
extending both upstream and downstream for a distance of 150
meters and for the full depth of the river. She explained that
the diffuser is the end of the pipe and the distance is both
upstream and downstream because the Mendenhall is a tidally-
influenced river. The mixing zone provides for a dilution of
10:1, she added.
1:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that at the Mendenhall facility
the Water Quality Standards for wastewater discharge would have
to be met at a dilution of up to 10:1.
MS. KENT answered that the Water Quality Standards must be met
by 150 meters both upstream and downstream of the end of the
pipe, depending on the tidal stage. In further response, she
said it is correct that the design is for a 10:1 dilution.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked what the ratio is for a cruise ship.
MS. KENT replied that for a cruise ship underway it is 50,000:1.
She said this very high dilution rate is because the vessel is
moving and there is a lot of turbulence so the mixing occurs
almost instantaneously.
1:35:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON calculated that the dilution ratio for
cruise ships is therefore 5,000 times that of the Mendenhall
treatment plant. He asked if this means that cruise ships can
discharge 5,000 times more copper from the end of the pipe.
MS. KENT responded that DEC's anti-degradation policy and mixing
zone regulations do not allow the department to let a cruise
ship reduce the level of treatment that it is already achieving.
Therefore, even if mixing zones are allowed for cruise ships,
DEC could not allow any backsliding and the cruise ships would
still have to meet the highest treatment technology available
requirement.
1:36:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether all of the cruise ships are
under the 50,000:1 requirement or are some doing something
different.
MS. KENT explained that that is the dilution DEC has calculated
doing dilution studies. The wastewater discharge permit that
cruise ships are currently operating under has both interim
limits and long-term limits that take effect in 2010. The long-
term limits are based on meeting the Water Quality Standard at
the point of discharge. The interim limits are based on roughly
what the cruise ships are able to obtain today. In further
response, Ms. Kent reported that the cruise ships are not
meeting the long-term effluent limits right now. The ships are
using a variety of advanced wastewater treatment systems that
all produce a pretty high level of treatment on the water, but
none of them achieve the end-of-the-pipe Water Quality Standards
for all parameters at all times.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that the discussion is in regard to
end of pipe and allowing DEC to use mixing zones, as is
typically done.
MS. KENT agreed. She said HB 134 as originally introduced would
delete the language "at the point of discharge" and would allow
DEC, under certain circumstances, to authorize mixing zones.
The department could not allow the vessels to discharge
concentrations of contaminants that are higher than what they
are discharging now, but it would give some flexibility on where
DEC measures compliance for those discharges.
1:39:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired what the copper standards are for
drinking water versus aquatic life.
MS. KENT answered that she did look up the various levels as per
Representative Tuck's question at a prior hearing, however she
said she did not look up the drinking water standards because
marine waters are not protected for drinking water, and the
cruise ships all discharge to marine rather than fresh water.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he is asking about copper because he
understands that some cruise ships are taking on drinking water
that contains more copper than is allowed for marine discharge
and he is curious as to what the difference is between the two
standards.
MS. KENT stated that the Water Quality Standard for copper for
protection of aquatic life is significantly more stringent than
it is for protection of human health in drinking water.
1:41:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether DEC would use the same mixing
zone standards for all ships regardless of the different
technologies onboard the different ships.
MS. KENT replied that the mixing zones are based on the Water
Quality Standards and what is happening in the waterbody, more
so than they are based on the type of technology that is
available on the vessel. In all other instances, DEC's Water
Quality Standards and mixing zone regulations apply to the
impact on the waterbody as opposed to who the discharger is.
Cruise ships are the only place where the law requires DEC to
look directly at the type of discharger.
1:42:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether the mixing zone would
change depending on what waterbody the cruise ship is in.
MS. KENT responded, "Absolutely." It is clear from the
department's dilution studies to date that the mixing zone for
an underway vessel with an advanced wastewater treatment system
is so small as to be almost immeasurable. However, a mixing
zone could be denied in instances where the discharge is into a
protected waterbody without a lot of flow. In further response,
Ms. Kent said DEC is focused on the impacts to the waterbody, so
authorization of a mixing zone by DEC would be based on the
characteristics of the waterbody, the flow, the effluent, the
tidal stages, and so forth.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether most ships in Alaska discharge
continually or do they have holding tanks so they can discharge
where need be.
MS. KENT explained that some vessels have the capability of
holding while in Alaska waters without having to change their
itineraries, while some probably cannot do this.
1:44:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired how Commissioner Hartig plans to
provide for ongoing improvement of technology and moving toward
better Water Quality Standards.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN offered his belief that the commissioner is held
to this standard by statute.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the administration recognizes that the
people who voted for the initiative wanted to raise the bar for
cruise ship discharge, but the bar may have been raised too
high. Research of the technology and discussions with the
industry and treatment system vendors, indicates a consensus
that the cruise ships cannot meet all water quality criteria in
the pipe. So the question is where the bar can be set. There
is a lack of science, engineering, and economic information as
to where to set that bar and how long it will take to get there.
The department is looking at how to gather this information to
make good judgment on where technology-forcing is appropriate
and how it is done under what terms.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG further stated that DEC is looking at how to
raise the bar as directed by the initiative without driving the
cruise industry out of the state. The technology conference
would have found the "silver bullet" if there was one to be
found, so getting there will have to be done in steps. He said
he sees the focus of discussions with the sponsor and others as
being an exploration of options. Perhaps it is too broad to say
that DEC is taking the lead on this, he continued. The
department is offering to engage itself to try to add an element
to HB 134 that is more in line with the expectation of the
initiative, and that is some element of technology-forcing.
1:48:07 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he asked the commissioner to somewhat take
the lead on this because of the commissioner's statement that
the bar set by the initiative is not achievable.
Commissioner Hartig clarified that he said the bar is not
achievable at this time.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN recounted that Representative Harris introduced
a bill that he thought would solve this problem. Now
Representative Seaton wants to impose regulations on land-based
wastewater treatment plants in communities across Alaska. He
said he thinks Representative Seaton's amendment should be
brought forward as a separate bill because it deals with
communities while the initiative deals with cruise ships. He
asked whether Commissioner Hartig thinks DEC can ensure that
Alaska's waters stay clean.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered yes, that is DEC's intent. The
department believes that with the regulatory tools it has, any
authorized mixing zone, whether for cruise ships or any other
industry, will have to meet a high standard. The department
goes over the 19 criteria mentioned by Ms. Kent carefully, and
will not sacrifice Alaska's water quality for any industry.
1:50:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN noted that Ms. Kent also said DEC is continuing
to upgrade its regulations to make sure that the most advanced
technology is used by all industries working within Alaska.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the anti-degradation provision
mentioned by Ms. Kent applies to any permit whether or not it
has mixing zones. If a mixing zone is authorized, there is a
separate requirement that treatment be done by using the most
efficient technology currently available. Both regulations
require waste reduction prior to treatment. The department does
not at this point have provisions that look beyond the current
horizon; however, that is an element of the initiative. The
February 2009 technology conference found that there may be some
technologies down the road, although it is unknown how far. He
said he would be looking at how DEC should go about exploring
the science and engineering questions so the department can firm
up its understanding of when these might occur and encourage the
technologies that would make sense in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he hopes Commissioner Hartig will bring
these back to members.
1:51:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she is concerned about fish
as well as human health because fishing is the main source of
income for most of her constituents. She asked what the exact
numbers are for how high copper can go before affecting fish.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG clarified that Ms. Kent was talking only
about the copper standard. It is not always true that the
standard is stricter for aquatic life than it is for drinking
water. Sometimes it is the other way, he explained. There are
different standards set for each contaminant. Science is always
advancing the knowledge about what the effects may be on humans
or aquatic life. The department's regulations are based on the
federal Clean Water Act which requires a review of the standards
every three years. During this review, DEC solicits public
review, looks at what other states are doing, and talks to other
Alaska agencies as well as federal agencies. He said the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides guidance as to
what new science the state should look at. Based on new
information, DEC determines what regulations need to be updated.
Updating is therefore a constant process.
1:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether it is the technology
or the engineering that is not yet there.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG deferred to Ms. Kent.
MS. KENT replied that one of the things learned at DEC's
February 2009 technology conference was that there is certainly
technology available that will treat wastewater to meet Alaska's
Water Quality Standards at the point of discharge. But what was
also learned is that sizing it and conducting the engineering
necessary to put it onboard the confined space of a cruise ship
is the challenge and will take a bit of time.
1:55:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether there is enough data to
provide an understanding about the cumulative effects of copper
and the other pollutants on the marine environment where cruise
ships operate.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG deferred to Ms. Kent.
MS. KENT responded that DEC has looked at dilution studies done
by the EPA on moving vessels and has conducted its own studies
on stationary vessels. For moving vessels the dilution ratio is
very high and it is virtually impossible to monitor for cruise
ship waste behind the vessel when it is underway. Last summer
the department collected field data to calculate dilution that
might occur under a worst case scenario. Skagway was selected
for this because the cruise ships are in a confined area with
very limited flushing. Even in this worst case scenario, under
some of the assumptions made about the data Alaska's Water
Quality Standards would be met within 15 meters of a discharging
vessel. Using other assumptions, specifically the very highest
values that have been recorded in the last year from cruise ship
discharges, it would take greater than 15 meters from the vessel
to meet Alaska's Water Quality Standards. She said that if DEC
had the ability to authorize mixing zones for cruise ships, the
department would be looking at very specific waterbodies and
situations where a mixing zone would not have a negative impact
on the water quality.
1:58:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that determination of the
cumulative impacts is still a work in progress.
MS. KENT said DEC does not think there is a problem in terms of
cumulative impacts from vessels that are underway.
MS. KENT, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, confirmed that from a
discharge perspective of ships underway, there is no cumulative
impact of contaminants.
1:58:50 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether a glass of Juneau's tap water
poured overboard would meet the point-of-discharge requirements.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG deferred to Ms. Kent.
MS. KENT answered that she does not have Juneau's data, but
there are points of call where the bunkered water delivered to
cruise ships is higher in copper than the aquatic life criteria.
So, if there was a mixing zone authorized for the glass of
water, there probably would not be a problem given the dilution
factor. She pointed out that all of Alaska's shore-based
wastewater treatment facilities have authorized mixing zones, so
if the drinking water source exceeds the Water Quality Standards
in the receiving water, it is usually dealt with through the
mixing zone or the treatment process.
2:00:10 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the answer to his question is yes
or no.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said DEC is requiring source reduction
evaluations from the cruise ship companies to determine how the
ships can reduce their intake of copper and other pollutants of
concern. Some of the ships have looked at where they get their
bunkered water because it can have an impact. Some of the ships
are looking at switching out the vessel's piping and some have
already done this. Copper in a community system can be coming
from the pipes and not the water source, he added. The amount
of copper in the water can depend on where the water is drawn
and the length of time that it has been in the pipes.
2:01:18 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained that the source of copper is from the
bunkered water supplied by the communities and not from the
ships themselves.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said there is something to that and the
vessels are looking into this as a means of reducing the amount
of copper that they are discharging.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN repeated his question about whether dumping a
glass of Juneau drinking water overboard would violate the Water
Quality Standards for point of discharge.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that he does not know what those
water quality parameters are, but he will get them to the
committee so the question can be answered definitively.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said the committee has received information that
the drinking water at most of the ports of call would violate
the point-of-discharge requirements.
2:02:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether it was DEC that gave the
extensions to what was originally passed by the initiative and,
if so, what were the conditions that DEC did that. He further
asked whether it would be possible for DEC to extend the time
for meeting the standards set by the initiative.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG confirmed that the 2010 deadline came from
DEC. The initiative would have required the cruise ships to
meet the end-of-pipe standards much earlier. The deadline was
extended because DEC knew from the cruise ships' discharge data
that they could not meet that deadline and more time was needed
to find the technology or do source reduction to meet the
standard. The department has statutory and regulatory authority
to put compliance schedules in discharge permits, he explained,
but when this is done DEC must be able to say that the schedule
will lead toward compliance and has definitive steps for getting
there. The first general permit issued for cruise ships
included a schedule of two years, which was the minimum time
that DEC thought it would take to reach Water Quality Standards
in the pipe. The steps included in the permit were not well
defined because DEC itself did not know what the steps were.
But the permit requires the cruise ships to provide source
reduction evaluations delineating what is in their discharge,
where it is coming from, what steps can be taken to reduce that,
and the progress that has been made. One purpose of the
February 2009 technology conference was to learn whether the
deadline needs to be extended and, if so, how far does it need
to be extended. So, the short answer is that DEC could extend
the deadline, but there must be a good statutory basis for doing
so and it must show that compliance can be achieved over time
and outline the steps that will be used for getting there - and
this is what DEC is still searching for.
2:05:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON understood that the technology and
engineering are available [for achieving end-of-pipe standards]
on land, but that currently the equipment is too large to put on
a vessel; so the hope is to develop equipment that will fit on a
ship.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that this is an over-simplification
as there are also energy requirements. He deferred to Ms. Kent.
MS. KENT deferred to DEC's contractors and their subcontractors
who conducted the February 2009 technology conference and are
familiar with the shore-based systems.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN interjected that he has heard that another
problem is the prohibitive cost.
2:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said her question is why the shore-based
technology cannot be used onboard ships.
REINALDO GONZALEZ, Ph.D., Associate Environmental Engineer,
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, explained that his
company provides consulting services to DEC in regard to
technologies available on land for treatment of ammonia and
metals, the specific metals being copper, zinc, and nickel. He
said his company has provided its experience in treating ammonia
and those metals to levels close to the 2010 standards and
sometimes lower than those. However, his company has not had
any experience with all of those combined. Space is not
normally an issue for land-based facilities, he pointed out, and
so it is very challenging to fit or find a way of bringing this
technology into a ship. Not only is this due to size, but also
because the standards for the cruise industry are completely
different from the standards for land-based. He said that so
far his company does not know of any cruise ship that has
installations that can comply with all of these standards when
all of these compounds are combined in the wastewater. He
advised that pilot testing will likely be needed to see what
will work.
2:09:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the "sub-account" money
flows into DEC or the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that there is the $4 per passenger
cruise ship tax that was there before the initiative and some of
that money currently funds DEC's permitting program. The sub-
account is a potential source for funding activities like the
February 2009 technology conference, but it is different than
the $4 tax.
2:10:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the advanced wastewater
treatment plants on the cruise ships in Alaska were installed as
a result of the 2006 initiative, DEC regulations, legislation,
or because the cruise ships wanted to.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG deferred to Ms. Kent as this happened before
his time at DEC.
MS. KENT said some of this was before her involvement, but there
was a time when there was significant public interest in cruise
ships and discharges from cruise ships. The companies met
voluntarily in a work group with DEC and members of the public
to look at the cruise ship discharges. The cruise ships
voluntarily conducted sampling to determine the quality of the
discharges. In the end, the cruise ship industry and DEC
endorsed legislation that became the regulatory scheme for the
initial DEC regulations. She said there were federal actions
occurring at about the same, but she is unsure of the sequencing
for that. So, it was a voluntary effort by the cruise ships to
significantly upgrade the treatment capabilities.
2:12:46 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that everyone working together sounds
like a good way of doing business.
MS. KENT agreed.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN held CSHB 134(CRA). He requested Commissioner
Hartig to work with the sponsor and the co-chair and come back
with information.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 134 Letter from City of Ketchikan.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 3.16.09 Seaton Amend 2.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 Letter from City of Seward.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 Letter to Governor.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 Water Quality Standards.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |