Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/26/2009 06:00 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
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 26, 2009
6:08 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."
- MOVED CSHB 134(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
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
03/16/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/09 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/25/09 (H) Heard & Held
03/25/09 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/26/09 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the hearing on HB 134.
ACTION NARRATIVE
6:08:33 PM
CO-CHAIR MARK NEUMAN, following a recess to the call of the
chair from 3/25/09, called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting back to order at 6:08 p.m. Representatives
Neuman, Johnson, Kawasaki, Tuck, Wilson, Olson, Seaton, Edgmon,
and Guttenberg were present at the call to order.
HB 134-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
6:08:48 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first 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 JOHNSON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 134, Version 26-LS0570\C, Bullard,
3/26/09, as the work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected, then withdrew his objection
after ascertaining that the motion was to adopt Version C as the
working document.
[There being no further objection, Version C was before the
committee.]
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN cited a 3/26/09 memorandum from Alpheus Bullard,
Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal and Research Services,
advising that the following technical drafting corrections would
be made to Version C [original punctuation provided]:
page 2, line 7: "except as provided in (e) of
this section" to replace "except as provided in
46.03.462(e)" [Drafting Manual at page 60]; and
page 4, line 16: "Sections 1 - 5" to replace
"Sections 1 through 5".
6:11:38 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Version C, labeled 26.LS.0570\E.6, which read as
follows:
Page 3, line 16, following "consists of"
Insert "eleven"
Page 3, line 18, following "AS 39.20.180."
Insert "Each of the individuals the commissioner
selects will serve for up to a five year period and
have expertise in the design, operation or function of
wastewater management and treatment systems; the
Commissioner will select at least one individual from
each of the following groups:
(1) coastal community domestic wastewater
management;
(2) cruise ship industry;
(3) commercial fishing industry; and
(4) a non-governmental organization with an
interest in water quality matters.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected for discussion purposes.
6:12:20 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), said the department envisions that the
Science Advisory Panel members will have expertise in waste
management treatment and technology drawn from experience or
education. The department also envisions the panel as being
comprised of a mix of people from both the public and private
sector. At a minimum this would include at least one
representative from a coastal community with wastewater
management experience, the commercial fishing industry, a non-
governmental organization with an interest in water quality
matters, and the cruise vessel industry. These people will have
some experience in waste treatment systems either on vessels or
on shore.
6:15:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether the five-year appointments
would be staggered.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that the maximum would be five
years because that is the maximum length that is intended for
this panel. The intent would be to appoint everyone at the same
time for a five-year term and only replacing those people who
dropped off the panel during that time.
6:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that the way the amendment is
written, all panel members would have to have expertise in
wastewater treatment systems. She [moved that the committee
adopt an amendment to] Conceptual Amendment 1 by adding the word
"also" so that someone like a fisherman would not have to have
wastewater expertise. Thus, Conceptual Amendment 1 would read:
"... the Commissioner also will select at least one
individual from each of the following groups ....".
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that DEC would not have an objection
to this, but that the department's preference would be to steer
toward the science and engineering aspect rather than just a
pure advocacy aspect.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, after ascertaining that there was no objection,
announced that the amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1 has
passed. [Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended, was now before the
committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON agreed with Representative Wilson's
suggestion that these four representatives should not be
required to have the same level of scientific expertise as the
other panel members.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that the page and line
numbers included in Conceptual Amendment 1 were based on
yesterday's working document, so they will need to be applied to
Version C where appropriate.
6:18:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON withdrew her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected and suggested adding a University
of Alaska science and engineering student to foster involvement
of the university.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said this would have to be offered as a new
amendment.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed that this is a good suggestion and said
the commissioner has heard it.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, after ascertaining that there was no further
objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
has passed.
6:19:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew Amendment 2 to Version C, labeled
26-LS0570\C.2, Bullard, 3/26/09.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN noted that Amendment 2 was also about the makeup
of the advisory panel.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3
to Version C, labeled 26-LS0570\C.3, Bullard, 3/26/09, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 22, following "workshops":
Insert ", with at least one public conference or
workshop to be held between January 1, 2012, and
January 1, 2014, if the department issues, renews, or
modifies a permit required under AS 46.03.462(a)(1)
after January 1, 2012, 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"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Amendment 3 would ensure
that if there has not been satisfaction and/or permits have been
issued for lesser standards after the 2012 workshops and
preliminary report, another technological workshop is required
for the final report.
6:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that use of the word "if" on line 3
of the amendment does not make sense to her.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that this means a second
conference is not mandated if, after the preliminary report in
2012, all of the conditions have been satisfied and the cruise
ships are meeting all of the standards. In further response, he
stated that another technological workshop would be held if,
after January 2012, DEC issues a new permit that has less
stringent water quality standards. The purpose of this
conference would be to determine the technologies that are
available that could be used by 2014 when the final report is
due. However, if the cruise ships are meeting the standards,
there is no reason to require another conference by statute.
6:23:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said she does not think that is what
Amendment 3 says.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed with Representative Wilson.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated that Amendment 3 looks different than the
amendment that was provided to members last night.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the amendments he had
provided were conceptual and these are the same amendments as
drafted by the Division of Legal and Research Services.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he does not have a copy of Amendment 3
as drafted by the Division of Legal and Research Service. He
interpreted Amendment 3 to mean that DEC would be required to
hold another public workshop before the department's second
report is due to the legislature in 2014 in the event that the
permitted vessels at that time had not yet achieved the at-the-
point-of-discharge requirement. He said the department does not
have a problem with that if this interpretation is correct.
6:25:54 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that four amendments were provided
last night, but today there are five.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that one of the five amendments
is a conceptual amendment because page 3, line 22, of Version C
does not say that the first workshop must be held before 2012.
So, he said he is proposing that the first workshop be held
before 2012, and if the cruise ships do not meet the
requirements at that time and another permit is issued with less
stringent guidelines, then another workshop will be required
before the final report is due.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG understood that DEC can issue waivers,
but in regard to violating standards, he said he thinks that
that was what was being written into the bill.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:28 p.m. to 6:50 p.m.
6:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1
to Amendment 3 as follows:
Line 1, following workshops
Insert "and"
Line 4, following "2012,"
Delete "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"
Thus, Amendment 3, as amended, would read as follows:
Page 3, line 22, following "workshops and":
Insert ", with at least one public conference or
workshop to be held between January 1, 2012, and
January 1, 2014, if the department issues, renews, or
modifies a permit required under AS 46.03.462(a)(1)
after January 1, 2012."
6:52:40 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that the department has no objection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, after ascertaining there was no objection,
announced that Amendment 1 to Amendment 3 has passed and that
Amendment 3, as amended, is now before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reiterated that, if a permit is issued
after 2012, Amendment 3 would require one more technological
workshop be held before the final report is due.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew his objection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, after ascertaining there was no further
objection, announced that Amendment 3, as amended, has passed.
6:54:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual
Amendment 4 to Version C, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 22, after "workshops"
Insert "before 2012;"
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Conceptual Amendment 4
would require one workshop to be held before 2012 and Amendment
3, as amended and adopted, would require a second workshop if a
permit was issued [after 2012].
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that DEC's intent is to have one
workshop before 2012 and report on that workshop in the interim
report to the legislature, therefore Conceptual Amendment 4 is
consistent with what the department is intending to do.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, after ascertaining there was no further
objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 4 has passed.
6:55:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved that the committee adopt Amendment
5, labeled 26-LS0570\C.1, Bullard, 3/26/09, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, following line 18:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 46.03.462(b), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, is amended to read:
(b) 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 [, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
46.03.462(e)];
(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)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 14:
Delete "AS 46.03.464 is"
Insert "AS 46.03.462(e), 46.03.462(f), and
46.03.464 are"
Page 4, line 15:
Delete "Section 6 of this Act takes"
Insert "Sections 3 and 7 of this Act take"
Page 4, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1 through 5 of this Act take"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 8 of this Act, this
Act takes"
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON objected.
6:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that Section 6, page 4, line 14,
of Version C repeals the Science Advisory Panel. Amendment 5
would provide that once the panel is repealed, a permit could no
longer be issued that exceeds water quality standards at the
point of discharge.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether this would eliminate everything
that has just been done.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded no. Amendment 5 provides that
if the problem is not solved in five years, then the issue would
come back to the legislature to decide what to do. Without
Amendment 5, there could be a continuous offering of wastewater
discharge permits that exceed the [at-the-point-of-discharge]
limits and there would be no requirement to come back to the
legislature if this were to occur. He reiterated that this
would eliminate the ability to grant discharge permits that
exceed the limits once the Science Advisory Panel is eliminated.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained that Amendment 5 would bring
everything back to where things are today, and the efforts over
the next five years would all be for naught.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said Version C, as currently written without
Amendment 5, provides that this does come back to the
legislature through DEC's final report in 2014. The report will
provide the legislature with the information necessary to make
an informed decision as to whether DEC has pushed the cruise
line companies as far as technology will take them. Thus, the
report would be a check on DEC and the legislature could choose
to take action at that time if it believes DEC has not done its
job in implementing AS 46.03.462. He agreed that Amendment 5
would create the problem described by Co-Chair Neuman, which is
that there is a standard the cruise ships just cannot meet
despite their best efforts.
7:00:32 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that the intent of HB 134 is to
continue the pressure to meet the standards established by the
2006 Cruise Ship Initiative ("the initiative"). He said
Representative Harris's fear is that if the technology is not
there, the cruise ships could not come to Alaska, which would be
devastating to communities. This problem is solved by HB 134,
but Amendment 5 would make everything start all over again. He
asked whether Commissioner Hartig agrees with his interpretation
of what Amendment 5 would do.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said his reading of Amendment 5 is
that it simply requires legislative action at the end of the
five-year period, and this action would be to either extend the
permits or say the problem has gone away.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether this could mean the legislature
does not take the recommendations of the Science Advisory Panel.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG answered that members would do
whatever they do.
7:03:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the legislature receives
dozens of reports a year, and most are simply filed with the
secretary and no one ever sees them and no action is taken on
them. There is no requirement for the legislature to do
anything with the 2014 report if permanent authority is given to
DEC to override the initiative's provisions for measurement at
the point of discharge. Under Version C and Amendment 5, five
years are given to improve the technology and then it comes back
before the legislature and the legislature can decide whether or
not to give DEC the ability to issue permits.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that yesterday's amendment [Amendment
3 to CSHB 134(CRA)] requires a permit every two years, which
means there will be three permits over the next five years. The
current permit has conditions that must be changed by March 2010
and, under the two year permit cycle, permits will need to be
issued again in 2012 and 2014. Amendment 5 could possibly leave
everyone in a suspended status because DEC would be giving its
final report by January 2014 and then the legislature might not
act until April 2015. If DEC had to modify the permit for a
fourth time in five years, the department would have only two
weeks to act before the 2015 cruise season, yet by law a 30 day
public comment period must be provided for permits.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he does not believe the legislature would
be unaware of this issue.
7:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the department would
have the ability to issue a two-year permit in December 2013.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that with yesterday's Amendment 3,
the department could not issue a permit with a life of more than
two years if it has conditions other than meeting all water
quality criteria at the point of discharge. Under the current
timetable a permit will be issued in March 2010. If the cruise
ships do not meet the standards by March 2012, a new two-year
permit would be issued and would be in effect until March 2014.
If the legislature changed anything during the 2014 legislative
session, another permit would have to be issued sometime between
March 2014 and the cruise season which starts May 2014.
7:09:25 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN remarked that this would put DEC in a bind.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed and said this puts DEC in an even
greater bind than what he had pointed out yesterday.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether Commissioner Hartig thinks
there is a need for Amendment 5.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that he thinks DEC's original
proposal was a reasonable approach. He said he does not see a
need for this many permits this quickly. Technologically things
do not change that much and the discharge does not change that
much. If there was that much of a risk with the discharge DEC
would not even allow the discharge in the first place. He
reminded members that what is being talked about is parts per
billion and it is extraordinary to be putting this much effort
into dealing with something on that scale.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON contended that the March 2014 permit would
be good until March 2016. Amendment 5 does not say that permits
have to be revoked, it only says that DEC cannot issue a permit
with less stringent standards after that. Thus, there would be
two years after 2014 for DEC to handle this.
7:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Commissioner Hartig believes
the water quality standards will be met by 2014 when the Science
Advisory Panel ceases, or will the cruise ship industry be
meeting standards that will be good enough.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that he does not want to predict
where the technology, or the technology that could be employed,
will be in 2014. Even if the technology becomes available in
2012, it will still take a period of time to purchase,
fabricate, and install the equipment, all of which must be done
around the cruise season. He said he thinks the ships will
continue to advance and be closer if not there, but he is unable
to speculate whether they will be able to meet all water quality
criteria at the end of the pipe by 2014. The science panel
could be extended if needed, but by that time it is likely that
everything that needs to be known about treatment systems for
cruise ships will be known.
7:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired how DEC will ensure that the
standards are eventually met if they have not yet been achieved
by the time the Science Advisory Panel is sunsetted.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that DEC could convene another
technology conference if it sees the need. He pointed out that
this is what DEC did with the February 2009 conference - there
was no statute that required DEC to hold that conference. He
said he thought that the panel and a 2014 report would give
comfort to the legislature and others that DEC was making a
concerted effort to reach the mandated standards as much and as
quickly as possible. At that point, the legislature can extend
the panel if it thinks the benefits from such a panel have not
been exhausted. Once the panel is no longer there does not mean
that DEC will stop trying to advance the wastewater treatment.
7:15:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reviewed the timeline that Commissioner
Hartig had previously outlined and surmised that this would not
give DEC enough time to act if changes needed to be made because
there had not been enough progress.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered correct.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said this makes sense to her.
7:17:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON interpreted Amendment 5 to mean that after
five years there is a mandate for the legislature to take
action, whether it is no action or some type of action. He
understood the commissioner to be saying that he cannot tell for
certain that the standards will be achieved after five years.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said correct. The department will push this
technology as hard as it can and it is DEC's hope that in five
years, when the next five-year permit is issued, the
technologies will have been identified that would achieve the
water quality standards at the point of discharge for all
pollutants. If all of the companies had not already employed
the technology at that time, then a compliance schedule would be
put in the permit that is issued in 2014.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON remarked that he does not have a clear
picture because he is hearing two different things - assurance
that the developing technology is coming along such that it
could be in place, yet there is hesitation that five years from
now that technology may not be available. In addition, there is
the term economically feasible in the bill. Therefore, he said
this does not line up for him to be able to have a reasonable
interpretation of the impact of Amendment 5.
7:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether Commissioner Hartig believes DEC
will get spread too thin trying to deal with so many permits and
conferences for an issue that may not really require this much
attention since it is parts per billion and DEC has many other
important issues that it must also deal with.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that DEC will follow whatever the
legislature directs. Only a handful of contaminants are not yet
meeting the at-the-point-of-discharge requirement, he pointed
out. At the February 2009 conference, some vendors expressed
optimism for ammonia, but that same optimism was not there for
the metals. For copper, what is being talked about is in the
parts per billion. The vendors at the conference were for
particular models of pollution reduction equipment, and those
models may not fit on all ships. Some ships may already have a
different system with a different vendor and the question is
whether that ship would be required to scrap that system and put
in a whole new system from a different vendor that might only
get a few parts per billion more. He said he is worried about
setting iron-clad requirements based on general statements that
everything is going to be fine in two years. The department
wants to be aggressive, but the question is how aggressive DEC
should be when something is already this close with no risk of
environmental harm in the meantime. In further response,
Commissioner Hartig said the vendors at the conference were not
signing contracts guaranteeing they would have systems for the
ships that would meet the water quality criteria. If such
contracts were in place, he said he would have more confidence.
7:24:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON argued that if Amendment 5 is not
included, then the legislature, through the proposed new
subsection (e) to AS 46.03.462, is permanently overriding the
statute that requires an end-of-the-pipe measurement of these
discharges. This end-of-the-pipe standard is what is being
exceeded under subsection (e), he pointed out. In response to
Co-Chair Neuman, he said Amendment 5 directs that in five years
the end-of-the-pipe standard will be back in place and the
legislature must deal with it.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN disagreed that this is all that Amendment 5
would do.
7:26:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood Amendment 5 to mean that if the
end-of-the-pipe standards are being met in five years, there
will be no need for the Science Advisory Panel and no need for
the legislature to do anything. If the standards are not being
met at that time, then the legislature can decide what to do
based on the information in DEC's reports. He said he thinks
this is a fair amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that it looks to him like micro-
management and he does not want to go down this path.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK disagreed that this is micro-management,
saying that what is being proposed is a method of relief if the
initiative's standards cannot be met.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed with Representative Olson and said he
thinks the commissioner is expressing concern about being able
to do the rest of his job and feels the bill meets the intent of
the initiative.
7:30:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON requested a rebuttal from the maker of the
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the current law requires that the
point of discharge be the point of measurement. Amendment 5
says that relief from this requirement is being given for five
years and at the end of the five years this relief goes away.
If Amendment 5 does not pass, then members are saying that this
relief goes on forever because the exception under proposed
subsection (e) to AS 46.03.462 will continue to be in place and
the department could continue to issue permits that are less
stringent than the water quality standards currently imposed in
statute from the initiative. Amendment 5 is saying that if the
standards cannot be met at the end of the five years, then it
must be brought back to the legislature.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that the commissioner has said the
statute cannot be met because the technology is not there and
that the measurements are in parts per billion.
7:33:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON presented a scenario in which Amendment 5
does not go into effect and the legislature does not take action
in 2014 to ensure that the standards of the initiative are
reached. Could a third party then force this issue through the
courts and put everybody in a bind, he asked.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG understood that if the proposed new
subsection (e) to AS 46.03.462 sunsets and the cruise companies
are unable to meet all the criteria at the point of discharge in
2014, there is a provision in the statute established by the
initiative that allows citizens to file suit even if DEC were to
give the cruise ships a further break.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON offered her opinion that the proposed new
subsection (f) to AS 46.03.462 under Section 3 would require DEC
to do what members want the department to do.
7:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked how the term economically feasible,
as written on page 3, line 1, ties into the initiative given
that economic feasibility was not part of the initiative.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG related that the initiative language says
the cruise ships must meet all water quality criteria at the
point of discharge and did not speak one way or the other to
technology. He presumed that the initiative's assumption was
that the technology existed or that the cruise ships would not
discharge in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that the term economically
feasible comes from DEC.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the term is standard language that is
not unique to the cruise industry; the term is applied to every
other context. For example, he explained, if there were other
dischargers in the state that were subject to water quality
criteria at the point of discharge and they could not meet the
criteria, the department would look at economic feasibility
along with several environmental factors to determine how the
discharger could be given a break. At a minimum, DEC would
still require the discharger to use the most effective treatment
technology that is technologically and economically feasible.
7:39:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether DEC could issue a permit
in 2020 that does not meet the initiative's end-of-the-pipe
standard if Amendment 5 fails to pass.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that that would be correct, but
only if in 2020 it could be shown to the department's
satisfaction that the discharger is using the most effective
technology that is technologically and economically available.
He pointed out that this is one requirement among others that
are already in state statute. Even if that level of technology
was being achieved, if there were still environmental risks, DEC
would not allow it. So it is not a free card because there are
still many requirements that must be met.
7:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked whether a waiver could be issued in
2020 if the technology is available.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said no, all water quality criteria would
have to be met at the point of discharge. This is the current
state requirement for all dischargers; it is not unique to
cruise ships. Whether it is an oil, gas, mining, or water
treatment company, the at-the-point-of-discharge requirement
should be met. However, the technology does not always exist
for this or it is not economically feasible. He noted that DEC
does not require fishing boats to meet all water quality
criteria, but if the department did do this, then it would
presumably give the fishing boats a break if there was no
technology that all fishing vessels could use to meet the
criteria. But, once that technology existed, DEC would require
fishing boats to have it.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether DEC will be following up
with this on all of the cruise ships.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied yes, the existing permit has a host
of monitoring and reporting requirements. Failure to meet the
requirements is a violation of the permit and an enforcement
action would be taken.
7:42:58 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether fishing boats are required to
have a discharge permit.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG responded that at this point they do not.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was sued several years
ago for not requiring discharge permits, primarily relating to
ballast water, he said. The federal court ruled that a permit
was needed for all vessels, but last year Congress passed an act
giving an exemption to commercial ships less than 79 feet in
length. This exemption applies to approximately 14,000 private
vessels in Alaska. The EPA went out with a general permit for
the larger commercial vessels. In further response,
Commissioner Hartig explained that, technically, vessels
discharging pollutants in the waters of the United States should
have a permit. However, small private watercraft and fishing
vessels are exempted under federal law.
7:44:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether the state can restrict that
discharge in state waters despite the federal exemption.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG said a separate state requirement could be
created, but by no means is he suggesting this.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that 14,000 vessels would put out a
lot of bilge and other wastewater, as do the state ferries. He
said he is all for clean water, but it seems to him that one
industry is being singled out.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG agreed that there are a number of discharges
that are exempted already and for those there is not any
technology or requirements.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether treatment technology exists in
the market today for these exempted vessels.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG answered that if DEC were to do something
for a situation of high numbers of recreation boats, it would be
more along the line of adopting regulations for best management
practices rather than issuing a permit for each vessel. This is
what DEC does for analogous situations, he added.
7:46:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON reiterated that it seems to him a single
industry is being singled out on a parts per billion issue while
a bigger water pollution culprit is being ignored. He asked
whether the commissioner agrees.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG stated that no comparison has been done so
he does not have a basis from which to offer an opinion.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that there are communities in
Alaska that have no standards put upon them and Anchorage is one
of them. She cited information from her committee packet that
states the discharge from Anchorage is the same as 251 large
cruise ships every day. She urged that the committee
concentrate on what is in HB 134 for now because the issue is
too far reaching to consider the other tangents.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON countered that clean water is what HB 134 is
looking at. If the committee is talking about clean water in
parts per billion, then maybe this should be broadened out to
include all of these other things. He said picking on one
industry is where he has a problem. If the issue is clean water
then that is what should be addressed and one industry should
not be singled out, especially an industry that is working hard
to address the issue while other industries are getting waivers.
7:49:10 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether the metals being discharged
from the cruise ships are coming from the drinking water that is
supplied to the vessels by Alaska communities.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that the department is trying to
address this question by requiring the cruise ships to conduct
source reduction evaluations. Municipal drinking water is one
of several suspects, he said. One suspect is the bunkered water
sitting for a length of time onshore in copper pipes before it
is brought onto the ship. In other instances the piping in the
vessels is contributing the metals. In those cases where a
vessel's metal piping was replaced with plastic piping, a
reduction in metals was seen. In further response, Commissioner
Hartig agreed that DEC will be continuing to look at this
through the source reduction evaluations.
7:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON maintained her objection to Amendment 5.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Seaton,
Guttenberg, and Kawasaki voted in favor of Amendment 5.
Representatives Wilson, Olson, Edgmon, Neuman, and Johnson voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 4-5.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that Version C of the bill, as
amended, was now before the committee.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report Version C of HB 134, labeled
26-LS0570\C, Bullard, 3/26/09, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHB 134(RES) was reported out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
7:52:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|