01/28/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB36 | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 2013
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Josephson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 36
"An Act exempting certain federal agencies or military services
firing or using munitions on active ranges from prior
authorization requirements of the Department of Environmental
Conservation."
- MOVED HB 36 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to the regulation of wastewater discharge from
commercial passenger vessels in state waters; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 36
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) RES
01/28/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 80
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/18/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/13 (H) RES
01/25/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/25/13 (H) Heard & Held
01/25/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/28/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, introduced HB 36.
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 36.
KEVIN WARD, Regional Counsel
Regional Environmental and Energy Office - Western
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy &
Environment
U.S. Army
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 36.
SETH BEAUSANG, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 36.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as the drafter of HB 36.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 36.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JUSTIN TRUMBO, Regional Counsel
Regional Environmental Coordinator
Western Region
U.S. Air Force
Department of Defense (DoD)
San Francisco, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Related DoD's strong support for HB 36.
KARLA HART, Lobbyist
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concern that HB 36 would take
away the public's right to know what is dispersed into waters.
JIM POWELL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information relevant to HB 36.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 80.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 80.
MICHELLE RIDGWAY
Auke Bay, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 80.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:36 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Johnson, Hawker, Seaton, Olson, P. Wilson, and Saddler were
present at the call to order. Representatives Tarr and Feige
arrived as the meeting was in progress. Representative
Josephson was also present.
HB 36-EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
1:03:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 36, "An Act exempting certain federal
agencies or military services firing or using munitions on
active ranges from prior authorization requirements of the
Department of Environmental Conservation."
1:03:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, speaking
as the prime sponsor of HB 36, informed the committee that in
2008 when the Alaska Clean Water Act was amended to its current
form, a problem was created with the state's long-standing
military munitions exemption. The legislation before the
committee proposes to amend AS 46.03.100(e)(7) such that it
can't be misinterpreted to restrict military exercises on ranges
other than in situations in which the federal Clean Water Act
applies. She pointed out that HB 36 reduces the chance of
litigation in trying to interpret waters of the U.S. and said
Alaska is the only state with this unclear interpretation of the
Clean Water Act. Without the proposed amendment in HB 36 there
is the possibility that military ranges would need to curtail
operations due to misinterpretation of Alaska law, even if the
ranges are in compliance with federal law. She highlighted that
the proposed amendment in HB 36 was vetted by the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Conservation,
the Department of Defense, and the Alaska Department of Military
& Veterans' Affairs. This legislation, she related, maintains
primacy, protects the environment, and allows military exercises
to continue without potential litigation.
1:05:39 PM
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS KATKUS, Adjutant General/Commissioner,
Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, highlighted the
strategic importance of Alaska to the military as a military and
training platform. No other places have ranges such as the
Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). He acknowledged
that in this time of constrained resources, all of the states
and all of the locations in which the U.S. has forces are
seeking areas to be relevant and to train vigorously. Although
Alaska has great areas to offer, it comes at an expense.
Therefore, Alaska needs to ensure that it's balanced, not more
or less restrictive than other areas, and remain fair and in
line with all competitors. Moving HB 36 forward accomplishes
just that, he opined.
1:07:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the language on page 2,
lines 18-19, asked if HB 36 would apply to all rifle ranges not
just military active ranges.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS deferred to others on line.
1:07:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to whether the term "active
ranges" means a range where there is firing as well as training.
He further asked whether any types of maneuvers take place on
"active ranges."
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS clarified that "active ranges" encompass
the full suite of military training. For more specifics, he
deferred to others on line.
1:08:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to the number of active ranges in
Alaska and their size.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS responded that although most of the active
ranges are located on the federal facilities, there are
different types of ranges, including space and cyber.
Therefore, the ranges could be broadly defined.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER then inquired as to what risks the active duty
component would encounter if HB 36 is not enacted.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS reiterated that in this resource
constrained environment everyone is working very hard to be the
best location for the military. In a worst case scenario, the
possible interpretation that Alaska's law restricts the use of
Alaska military ranges in a manner not required by federal law
could be the tipping point and of critical importance.
1:09:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether it is a moneymaker when
other entities train in Alaska.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS answered that the National Guard sees no
benefit, but there is a huge impact to the local area. For
instance, Red Flag in the Eielson Air Force Base (Eielson) area
has a huge impact in the local community. The presence of
military has a significant and positive impact on the local
community.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised then that [the possible
interpretation] has a large impact on the economy of Alaska as a
whole.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS agreed it could have a very big impact if
the interpretation that Alaska's military ranges were restricted
in a manner not required by federal law was the sole decision
point regarding whether to place, train, or station resources in
Alaska.
1:11:21 PM
KEVIN WARD, Regional Counsel, Regional Environmental and Energy
Office - Western, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Energy & Environment, U.S. Army, speaking on
behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD) Regional Environmental
Coordinator's Office and military services in Alaska, noted that
the committee packet should include a letter of support for HB
36 from Clare Mendelsohn, DoD Regional Environmental
Coordinator, Region 10. He said the bill clarifies language in
the Alaska Clean Water Act so that it will only apply to
military ranges if required by the federal Water Pollution
Control Act. In other words, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) remains the permitting authority, Alaska and
Alaska state government remains the agency making permitting and
enforcement decisions. For decisions pertaining to military
ranges, Alaska will look to the federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
1:12:35 PM
MR. WARD explained that the committee is being asked to pass
HB 36 because until 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) held primacy and was the enforcing and permitting
authority in Alaska for the Clean Water Act. When Alaska sought
that primacy, the EPA told DEC it must amend an existing
exception for military ranges, which was changed in 2008 to
read: "there would be exception unless there was a discharge to
waters of the United States". The aforementioned language has
been the subject of much litigation, including at least three
U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last several years and EPA
and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations and guidance.
Furthermore, the definition of "waters of the United States" is
some 30 lines long. Despite the aforementioned, it remains
unclear as to what that term means and there appears to be
another case that may go before the U.S. Supreme Court and the
EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are working on guidance
with regard to the earlier mentioned phrase. Therefore, Mr.
Ward supports passage of HB 36 that replaces the language "it
results in a discharge into waters of the United States." with
"otherwise regulated under 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act)" so that there is a body of law to
utilize when determinations are necessary. He noted that DEC
remains in the decision-making process.
1:14:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON related his understanding that under HB 36
the Kachemak Bay gun club, an active range, from which a lot of
lead ends up in a wetlands area would be exempt even though it
is not an active military range.
MR. WARD understood the basis for Representative Seaton's
reading of the language, but pointed out that the language was
in the existing statute prior to 2008. He said he did not know
if that is how DEC applied the language until 2008 nor how DEC
would read the language.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he does not object to the
legislation, but rather to an unintended consequence of allowing
the potential for contaminants to enter water for which there is
no intention to have this military exemption.
1:17:17 PM
SETH BEAUSANG, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL),
pointed out that the terms "training activities" and "active
ranges" are not defined in statute, and thus he was not sure
there is a clear answer. However, in the past DEC has
interpreted the language broadly so that AS 46.03.100(e)(7)
applies to both military and non-military ranges.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that it is not the intent to allow
the discharge in the waters of the United States for non-
military ranges. Therefore, he expressed the need to review
that.
1:18:40 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether ranges that [do not have military
activities] would be regulated under the EPA regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON clarified that any range that has to be
permitted will still have to be permitted because the Clean
Water Act must be followed. The change proposed in HB 36 speaks
only to military ranges, the language to which Representative
Seaton is referring was already in statute and [HB 36] will not
change anything DEC was doing prior to this legislation. The
change proposed in HB 36 merely clarifies one sentence as all
the other language is already in place.
1:20:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled that Mr. Ward testified that the
language is being interpreted as more inclusive. By removing
the language ", including active ranges" would be definitive in
terms of what ranges are being addressed.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered to ask that, but noted that
[HB 36] was vetted through four agencies and word-smithed such
that there would not be any consequences. She suggested that
deleting the language suggested by Representative Tarr would
likely impact other ranges. She opined that DEC will take care
of the permitting and the bill as written is what the department
needs in its toolbox.
1:22:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, referring to the language on page 2,
lines 17-18, asked whether this language would include ranges
used for civilian training or other local activities. He
further asked whether the language covers ranges other than
military ranges.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, said she did not know, but offered
to research the matter and provide the committee with an answer.
1:23:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked whether there are permitted ranges in
Alaska that do discharge in the water.
MR. BEAUSANG related his understanding that in the past DEC has
not issued permits for munitions ranges.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON informed the committee that he was
involved with the Kachemak Bay gun range, and there were
considerations, permits required, and restrictions on an area
because it would have put lead shot into water discharges, which
is waters of the U.S. or the state. He reiterated the need to
avoid any unintended consequences, especially since there have
been expensive mitigation efforts to clean up lead shot that
went into wetlands.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related that this same thing has come
up in Sitka.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, understood the question to be
whether there are any ranges that are permitted now. She
clarified that the permit being discussed is considered a
wastewater discharge permit and would be issued under the Alaska
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program. She said that
as far as she knows there are no [ranges that are permitted].
Prior to October 2012 the EPA retained authority for that
discharge, which was one of the final phases. The DEC has not
issued any permits in that interim time and she related her
understanding that none were in place when the EPA had authority
for the program. She said that to consider munitions a
wastewater discharge is an odd category.
1:26:36 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired as to the risks to the state should HB
36 pass as written.
MS. BONNET HALE responded that DEC has reviewed the legislation
and there is no risk to primacy, and it has been cleared with
the EPA. The legislation returns [the statute] to the original
intent, such that if the Clean Water Act is changed so that
permits are not required for munitions, the state would be
consistent with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, there is no
risk to the program.
1:27:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR surmised then that because there has been a
limited time since the state took over and completed the fourth
phase of primacy from the federal government, there would not
have been an opportunity for DEC to have issued any permits, and
thus [ranges] would have been operating under any existing EPA
permits, were there any. She requested verification of the
aforementioned.
MS. BONNET HALE agreed to verify that, but reiterated her
understanding that the EPA did not issue any permits. In
further response to Representative Tarr, Ms. Bonnet Hale said
she would specifically review the Rabbit Creek [range].
1:28:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that the statute refers to
ranges operated by the DoD or a U.S. military agency. The
Rabbit Creek range is operated by the Alaska Department of Fish
& Game (ADF&G) and the military does not operate private ranges
such as the one in Homer. He requested confirmation that the
military does not manage [non-military] ranges.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS shook his head no.
1:28:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER highlighted that the title of HB 36
specifically refers to "An Act exempting certain federal
agencies or military services ...." He then asked whether the
title provides any comfort that HB 36 specifically addresses
military ranges and not other private ranges.
MS. NAUMAN directed attention to the language on page 2, lines
17-18, and stated that the language "including active ranges
operated by the United States Department of Defense ..." does
not foreclose other types of active ranges. The language merely
provides examples of some of the ranges that would apply to this
proposed law.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER remarked then that the title does not
specifically limit the legislation to [military ranges].
1:29:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised then that the language "including
active ranges operated by" actually means that the legislation
applies to both those operated by DOD as well as others not
operated by DoD. He related his understanding that the intent
of the legislation is to address active ranges operated by DoD
and he has no opposition to that, but the existing language
creates unintended consequences.
1:31:07 PM
LIEUTENANT COLONEL JUSTIN TRUMBO, Regional Counsel, Regional
Environmental Coordinator, Western Region, U.S. Air Force,
Department of Defense (DoD), began by relating DoD's strong
support for HB 36. Regarding the application to private ranges,
he clarified that HB 36 does not create any new exemptions. He
then directed attention to page 2, lines 19-20, of HB 36 and
stated that the language "unless otherwise regulated" is
important. The legislation, he specified, does not do anything
that federal law does not do. The language does not create an
exemption per se, rather it would conform Alaska law to federal
law. Therefore, he did not believe changing the language at
this point would be advisable. With regard to the impact
military ranges have on the state's economy, he highlighted that
the military is Alaska's largest employer and has an annual
impact of nearly $5 billion a year. Therefore, HB 36 will help
provide consistency and predictability with Alaska's water law
and will provide protection to Alaska in accordance with federal
law. The aforementioned is why he urges the committee to move
forward with HB 36. In closing, he thanked prime sponsor
Representative T. Wilson and co-sponsor Representative Johnson
for their work.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:33 p.m. to 1:37 p.m.
1:37:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reviewed AS 46.03.100(a)-(e) and related
that subsection (a) specifies there must be prior authorization
of the department for waste management, disposal, and discharge.
Subsections (b)-(d) address how to obtain that prior
authorization. Subsection (e) is a specific carve-out for
certain activities. He said he didn't see anything that changes
the regulatory authority the state has vested over shooting
ranges that exist for recreational purposes, which were the
types of ranges cited before the committee. He requested
confirmation that HB 36 has no effect, increasing or decreasing,
Alaska's regulatory structure or intent to regulate shooting
facilities maintained for the recreational use of the public.
MR. BEAUSANG concurred with Representative Hawker and confirmed
that HB 36 would not change any of the existing state permitting
requirements as it applies to munitions. The only change is
that in the future any federal law changes with respect to what
permits, HB 36 would ensure that both federal and state
permitting requirements are the same.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER remarked that he is very comfortable with
HB 36 as it is currently written.
1:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then withdrew his objection to the
language.
1:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the drafter concurred with Mr.
Beausang's interpretation.
MS. NAUMAN stated her agreement with the previous speaker that
HB 36 makes no change to what the state will be allowed to
regulate.
1:42:23 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony.
KARLA HART, Lobbyist, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
expressed concern that HB 36 would take away the public's right
to know about what is dispersed into waters. As was mentioned,
Alaska is strategically located in terms of exercises and those
exercises are at a greater scope, scale, and volume which create
the potential of placing more hazards into the environment. She
then informed the committee that DoD has an initiative to get
its activities exempted from the federal environmental
protection laws, including the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, and elements of the Clean Water Act. If
DoD is successful in exempting themselves from the federal law,
then DoD will be in compliance with the federal law when exempt
from it. Therefore, Alaska is giving up its right to protect
its waters and to understand what is being placed in the waters
of the state. Given what can be found in munitions, it is
worthwhile for Alaska to have knowledge of it.
1:44:40 PM
JIM POWELL began by informing the committee that he is a former
25-year employee of DEC during which he performed water quality
standards. With regard to an earlier question about state
permitting on rifle ranges, Mr. Powell said that there was
permitting through a 401 certification, which is a dredge and
fill permit, under the Clean Water Act. Most of the ranges in
the state are located on wetlands, and thus a wetlands permit
would be necessary. In fact, [DEC] did a permit for the Hank
Harmon Range, which provided a reasonable assurance that state
and federal water standards were met through the permit. In
conclusion, Mr. Powell stated that he has no position on HB 36.
1:46:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to the size of the largest range
in the state.
MAJOR GENERAL KATKUS responded he did not know the number of
acres, but the JPARC is a significant sized range that is larger
than the state of Massachusetts. However, he clarified that
that does not mean every square inch is impacted by ordinates.
Although the ranges are very large in Alaska, this legislation
changes nothing in how those ranges are managed. The
legislation provides a clarification that allows Alaska to be on
a level playing field with every other state.
1:47:26 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, upon determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER observed that a zero fiscal note is
associated with HB 36.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that during his meeting with the
minister of Alberta he learned that Alberta has an agreement
with the University of Nevada to provide [unmanned air vehicle]
(UAV) ranges. Although that opportunity is no longer, he
expressed the need to ensure Alaska does not miss further
opportunities. To that end, he stated his support of HB 36.
1:48:43 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report HB 36 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, HB 36 was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
HB 80-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
1:53:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 80, "An Act relating to the regulation of
wastewater discharge from commercial passenger vessels in state
waters; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR SADDLER re-opened public testimony so members could ask
questions of previous witnesses.
1:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested verification of a statement
that she heard that only one cruise ship company is not in
compliance [with Alaska's wastewater discharge requirements].
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
replied she did not recall any statements that only one cruise
ship is not complying. Of the approximately 28 vessels in
Alaska every year, about 16 ask for permit coverage. Not all of
those asking for permit coverage actually discharge in the
state, but they do all of their monitoring and submit all of
their monitoring. The requirements that they have to comply
with are the standards in the permit because right now they do
not have to meet the point of discharge for those parameters
that they cannot quite meet yet.
1:55:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that one ship switched from
bronze to titanium impellered pumps because bronze sheds copper.
He inquired whether passage of HB 80 would allow ships to return
to bronze impellered pumps or would the ships have to stay with
the [current] standards that have lowered their copper discharge
into the water. He further asked whether that would be on an
individual vessel basis or industry-wide basis.
MS. KENT responded DEC does not regulate the kinds of pumps,
propellers, or other equipment used onboard a vessel. Rather,
DEC permits look at the discharge in terms of water quality that
is coming off a vessel. In the last permit, DEC had a multitude
of different discharge limits in an effort to push those vessels
that can do better to do better.
1:56:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that the vessels have been
pushed towards having less discharge at end of pipe. He asked
whether the ships could increase their amount of copper
discharge by going back to the cheaper, older pumps in
replacement situations if mixing zones are now allowed and there
is no longer measurement at the end of pipe. He further asked
whether the ships would be required to maintain lower amount of
discharge at end of pipe even though a higher discharge would
meet their mixing zone at the end of the ship.
MS. KENT answered it would not be DEC's intent to allow ships to
lower the quality of the water being discharged just because
they are allowed to have a mixing zone. The mixing zone rules
require a mixing zone that is as small as practicable. A lot of
conditions must be met to get a mixing zone. The only
flexibility that DEC might need would be for vessels currently
discharging only graywater and that have very stringent permit
limits. If in the future those vessels want to also discharge
blackwater, DEC would have to come up with effluent limits for
that, too, that may or may not equal, or be more stringent than,
the previous permit. In general, DEC would not want to see a
permit get more lax.
1:58:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood DEC would not want to see that,
but asked how the department would regulate so that this does
not happen. He said his understanding is that DEC would not
establish where the edge of the mixing zone is or take any
measurements at the edge. He inquired how DEC would enforce the
intent to not allow the water discharges to creep back up to
previous levels.
MS. KENT replied that when going through the permitting process
DEC looks at the previous data and uses that data to evaluate
and set the permit limits for the next permit. In general, if a
permittee is meeting permit limits and doing even better than
the permit limits, DEC usually ratchets down and becomes even
more stringent. In very few instances would the effluent limits
go up on a permit from one issuance of the permit to the next.
This is because DEC has a lot of regulations that look at the
technology the permittee must be using and the permittee must
meet the highest standards for treatment. She said the
requirements for a mixing zone are very stringent and therefore
she did not see a relaxation of permits in any big way.
2:00:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how long it currently takes to issue
permits under the 2006 Initiative.
MS. KENT responded she would have to look at DEC's records to
see exactly long it takes from the start of writing a permit to
actually issuing a permit; however, it is an extensive process
that takes many months. The department must look at all of the
data from the discharges that were discharged under the previous
permit, do calculations on that, revise the effluent limits,
conduct a public notice and comment period on the permit, and
write a fact sheet that goes with the permit that describes how
DEC developed the limits for the permit.
2:01:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired how DEC gains that previous data
and what is looked at when that is judged.
MS. KENT answered the current permit requires the subset of
vessels visiting Alaska and discharging in Alaska to take their
first monitoring samples within 10 days of their first visit to
the state each cruise ship season. A third party sampler is
used by DEC to collect the samples and conduct the analysis.
Thereafter the ships have monitoring requirements - some are
daily requirements, most are twice per month - and those are
reported to DEC. The department therefore has quite a bit of
data by the end of the season.
2:02:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether DEC has seen from the data any
violations since 2006.
MS. KENT replied there has been a few exceedances of the permit
limits but she did not know how many.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what the consequences are for
violations.
MS. KENT responded DEC uses the same approach that is used for
enforcement across the department. First, the reasons for the
violation are looked at to see whether there were any
extenuating circumstances. The department sometimes provides
compliance assistance, but for anything that becomes repeated or
that is a gross violation DEC issues notices of violation (NOV).
2:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR inquired how DEC establishes and enforces
the boundaries of a mixing zone. She further asked which
reporting is done by the third party and which is self-reported
by the cruise ship.
MS. KENT deferred to the director of the Division of Water.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered that establishment
and monitoring of the mixing zone boundary varies from permit to
permit. Typically, mixing zones are established using modeling,
which is quite complex and includes factors such as water
density, the kind of fresh water present, and the tidal flow.
The modeling itself is used to create the boundary of the mixing
zone and DEC sizes its mixing zones to be as small as
practicable. It depends upon the permit, when it is issued or
re-issued, as to whether DEC will have monitoring at the edge of
the mixing zone or not; DEC is not required to do that, but it
is something DEC can do to actually determine if the mixing zone
is working as modeled. In regard to reporting, she said she has
been away from the specifics of the reporting, but offered her
belief that the sampling and reporting on most cruise ships is
currently being done through a third party. She pointed out,
however, that in general - nationwide as well as in Alaska -
self-reporting is very common for permittees.
2:06:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER requested Ms. Hale to speak to the
qualifications of a third party sampler.
MS. BONNET HALE replied she did not have the qualifications at
the top of her head.
MS. KENT offered her belief that the department has established
the qualifications of the person conducting the sampling in
regulation, but that she and Ms. Hale did not have a copy of the
regulation with them.
2:07:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether each ship would have a
different size mixing zone based on the pollutant load of that
particular ship and would that size be based on the samples
taken initially in the season.
MS. BONNET HALE responded that DEC has handled mixing zones
differently in different types of general permits. In some
general permits, DEC does the modeling for the mixing zone and
sets the characteristics that must be met in order for a
discharger to qualify for the permit; for example, the discharge
could only be up to a certain level. In other cases, DEC has
done modeling on a case-by-case basis so each authorization has
the mixing zone modeled for that specific authorization. Since
the department has not been doing mixing zones, per se, for the
cruise ship discharges, it would have to figure out what is the
best way to do it.
2:08:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised it is currently unknown whether
it would be one generalized mixing zone regardless of the
contaminant load from the ships or individualized mixing zones.
MS. BONNET HALE answered DEC would not model and size a mixing
zone regardless of the pollutant load. The pollutants going
into the effluent are very important in the modeling, so there
might be a set of mixing zones based on ranges. While it is
hard to speculate at this time, DEC would not have a one-size-
fits-all-no-matter-what-is-in-the-effluent mixing zone.
2:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired how the modeling is done in those
cases where certain qualifications have to be met.
MS. BONNET HALE replied that DEC has permitting staff who
specialize in modeling and numerous staff who are trained in
modeling. Oftentimes, one staff will do the modeling and then
the experts will check that. The department also frequently
works with the permittees where the permit applicants do some
modeling themselves and then DEC's expert staff members check
those models.
2:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what is included in the modeling.
MS. BONNET HALE responded that some of the factors looked at in
the modeling include: flow of the effluent, depth of the
receiving water, stratification of the receiving water, the
different buoyancies, and the different levels of marine versus
fresh water; and for a stationary source DEC takes into account
tidal reversal.
2:11:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether the modeling takes into
account the propulsion method used, such as whether a ship is
using azipods, and how much water is agitated by the propulsion
method and the size of the wake.
MS. BONNET HALE answered it is hard to get very specific about
exactly what goes into the model, but if DEC has information
that there are different methods of propulsion for a ship, the
department's modelers will definitely take that into account.
She said DEC's modeling software is the standard software used
throughout the country, and it takes many factors into account.
While she did not know whether the software would take into
account, for example, the method of propulsion, she said it
would take into account the turbulence of the water.
2:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Ms. Ridgway was a member of the
Cruise Ship Wastewater Science Advisory Panel ("Science Advisory
Panel") and asked whether Ms. Ridgway's dispute with the panel's
findings had been submitted to the panel in writing.
MICHELLE RIDGWAY first clarified that she was availing herself
for questions on her own behalf and that she did not want to
testify on behalf of the panel nor about the process. She said
DEC was present at all the meetings and it would be more
appropriate for DEC to explain the panel process. Regarding
Representative Johnson's 1/25/13 question about whether she had
communicated with her fellow panelists about what items she felt
should be in the report, she said she had sent e-mails to panel
members about the areas for which she strongly felt specific
information needed to be included, such as geographic
information system (GIS) databases on where ships go throughout
the state, data on what the constituents were, the effluent
being discharged by these ships throughout the state, the
volumes, the proximity to important fish rearing grounds, larval
aggregation areas, and other things of this nature. She sent
183 e-mails to the contracted manager of the panel; 93 e-mails
to DEC staff; and 46 e-mails to the technical staff requesting
that specific data, data tables, and queries be made and
incorporated into the document as well as expressing her concern
about some things that were included in the document. In total,
she sent about 571 e-mails.
2:16:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON offered her understanding that
Representative Johnson was asking whether Ms. Ridgway had
submitted written concern at the end [of the report writing
process].
MS. RIDGWAY replied yes and that she would provide it to the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON confirmed he would like Ms. Ridgway to
provide her written comments to the committee.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER clarified that what is specifically being asked
for is Ms. Ridgway's written dissent offered for the panel's
report, not the e-mails.
2:18:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, noting that concern had been expressed
about marine mammals and fish, inquired whether the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (AGF&G) would be providing testimony
and whether ADF&G had been invited to do so.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER answered no to both questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said this is the administration's bill,
so it is the administration that provides the testimony.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER closed public testimony and opened discussion
to the consideration of amendments.
2:19:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pulled Amendment 1, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.4, Nauman, 1/26/13, with the understanding that he may
offer it later depending on the outcome of discussion. He said
he had conversations and to enact the kind of standards that
would have to be enacted would probably be very detrimental to
the seafood industry and would make a salmon dinner considerably
more expensive than it is now.
2:20:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.3, Nauman, 1/26/13, which read:
Page 2, line 25, through page 3, line 5:
Delete all material and insert:
* Sec. 3. AS 46.03.462(e) is repealed and reenacted
to read:
"(e) When issuing, reissuing, renewing, or
modifying a permit required under (a)(1) of this
section, the department may only include the
authorization of a mixing zone for a commercial
passenger vessel if
(1) that vessel employs an advanced
wastewater treatment system that falls within the
class of systems identified by the department under
(k) of this section or employs other means of
pollution prevention, control, and treatment that the
department finds can achieve a quality of effluent
that is comparable to that of one or more vessels
employing an advanced wastewater treatment system; and
(2) the permit prohibits the discharge of
untreated sewage, treated sewage, graywater, or other
wastewater in an area established under AS 16.20 as a
state game refuge, game sanctuary, or critical habitat
area."
Page 3, following line 6:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(i) Under (e)(1) of this section, if a
commercial passenger vessel employs an advanced
wastewater treatment system that satisfies the
requirements of (e)(1) of this section, the department
shall find the commercial passenger vessel satisfies
all state technology-based treatment requirements for
authorization of a mixing zone."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 3, line 15:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(e)(1)"
Objection to the amendment was voiced by Representative Johnson
and Co-Chair Feige.
2:20:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he requested Legislative Legal
and Research Services to draft an amendment to HB 80 to prohibit
cruise ship wastewater discharges in ADF&G special areas,
critical habitats, state game refuges, and state game
sanctuaries. The amendment is a little longer than it would
otherwise would have been because there was some difficulty with
conforming language due to HB 80 being a governor's bill drawn
up by the Office of the Attorney General rather than Legislative
Legal and Research Services. He said Alaska Statutes 16.20.520-
530 allow the legislature to establish critical habitat areas to
protect and preserve habitat areas especially critical to the
perpetuation of fish and wildlife and to restrict all other uses
not compatible with the primary purpose. Amendment 2 would take
the public's angst off the table about giving DEC the ability to
discharge using a mixing zone in waters that would not be
otherwise compatible with the Alaska standards. He added that
cruise ship industry representatives have told him that they do
not intend to discharge into state critical habitat areas.
2:25:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER understood that Amendment 2 would establish a
point-of-discharge water quality standard for large cruise ships
in the state's critical habitat areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied there would be nothing that
prevents someone from discharging water that meets the water
quality standards in any waters of the state of Alaska.
Amendment 2 would disallow DEC from authorizing a mixing zone
for water that is above water quality standards within the six
critical habitat areas that include marine waters. In further
response, he clarified that "above water quality standards"
means prevents water that is dirtier than the existing state
standards that exist without a mixing zone. He said these areas
established by state statute should be taken off the table.
2:27:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether any municipal wastewater
facilities are disposing of waste in a mixing zone in any of the
six critical habitat areas.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded he did not believe there was in
all of them, but the Kachemak Bay Critical Habitat Area goes
from Anchor Point over to Seldovia. No municipal discharge goes
into Kachemak Bay itself, but outside of Kachemak Bay it is
about a three-mile distance between the end of the spit and
where the critical habitat line goes across and that is within
the discharge zone of the City of Homer and it is a fixed mixing
zone.
2:28:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the discharge pipe and
mixing zone of Homer are not in the critical habitat area, 1600
feet offshore.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood that it is not in Kachemak Bay,
but outside, whereas cruise ships generally come into Kachemak
Bay. While there could be permits in Kachemak Bay, he was
unaware of any for the municipality of Homer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON requested verification of that.
MS. BONNET HALE understood that, based upon DEC's records, the
City of Homer discharges within the Kachemak Bay State Critical
Habitat Area, as do a couple of seafood processors and possibly
Seldovia.
2:29:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in the interest of clean water, inquired
whether the maker of Amendment 2 would be willing to accept a
friendly amendment that would bring into Amendment 2 the
municipal waste systems' discharge within the critical habitat
area.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered that including municipalities
would expand the bill greatly. He maintained that a fixed-point
mixing zone that can be measured and sampled at the edge and a
large cruise ship vessel that has a mixing zone edge that cannot
be defined or measured are quite different things and should not
be combined.
2:30:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how many other critical habitat
areas and wildlife sanctuaries have entities discharging into
them. She further asked how Amendment 2 would affect DEC.
MS. BONNET HALE replied she did not know off the top of her head
how many other facilities discharge into critical habitat areas,
but she could find out. In general, a lot of communities all
over the state have discharge.
2:31:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked where the governor stands on
Amendment 2.
MS. KENT responded DEC believes Amendment 2 unnecessary because
the department already has authority in the statutes to put
special conditions on any discharger that either reduces the
amount that the discharger can discharge, specifies the location
of discharge, or prohibits locations for discharge, which DEC
does in many of its permits. Regarding how Amendment 2 might
affect the department, she said permitting by statute takes away
some of the flexibility that DEC might need for specific
dischargers in specific locations; DEC feels it has plenty of
authority to protect water quality in those areas while
maintaining some flexibility. Even the small vessels that do
not currently have to have a permit are prohibited by DEC from
discharging in the same areas that the bill would want them to
be prohibited from discharging in, and DEC has also put special
provisions where they cannot discharge within 100 meters of an
anadromous fish stream. So, DEC has a lot of control over
protecting special areas in the state under the existing
permitting regime. An amendment like this would undo some of
the other things the administration is trying to do with the
bill, which is really to treat cruise ship discharges like the
state treats all other wastewater discharges.
2:34:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER directed attention to AS 46.03.462, the
statute governing the terms and conditions of discharge permits,
that Amendment 2 proposes to amend. He read from subsection (a)
which states, "An owner or operator may not discharge any
treated sewage, graywater, or other wastewater from a commercial
passenger vessel into the marine waters of the state unless ..."
and said the permitting process that is subsequently outlined in
the statute is rigid and rigorous. He said the only thing
Amendment 2 would accomplish is to selectively step in to
statutorily prohibit discharge in a state game refuge,
sanctuary, or critical habitat area. To him, this involves the
legislature in selective permitting and not allowing the
latitude the legislature has historically granted to the
department. Representative Hawker further noted that subsection
(h) states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
the authority of the department to "restrict the areas in which
discharges permitted under this section may occur" or "impose
additional terms and conditions on the manner in which
discharges permitted under this section may be made in a
specific area." Therefore, he believed that DEC is absolutely
adequately empowered under existing statute to appropriately
protect the environmental interests of the state without the
legislature selectively mandating absolutes into the permitting
process, which he thinks is wrong.
2:37:01 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE concurred with Representative Hawker, saying it
is not in the best interest of the legislature to micromanage
the executive branch through statutory changes. He said
everyone in the room has the same interest, which is to keep
Alaska's waters as pristine as possible.
2:37:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, noting the statute empowers DEC to exempt
certain areas from mixing zones, stated that it also empowers
the department to have mixing zones in critical habitat areas.
He asked why DEC would need to have mixing zones in critical
habitat areas.
MS. KENT answered it gets back to treating the sources of
discharges differently. Once it gets into the water it does not
matter if it came from a cruise ship or a domestic wastewater
facility, what DEC is most concerned about is the impact on the
water body. An amendment like this would be treating the
dischargers differently even though their impact may be the same
or their impact may be different, and those are the kind of
issues that DEC works out through the permitting process and
through the public review of those permits.
2:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that when he heard this issue four
years ago it was made clear that there is a difference between a
stationary port facility and its regulations versus a mobile
vessel carrying 3,500-5,000 people. He understood Ms. Kent to
be saying that DEC would like to treat cruise ship discharges
the same as a port facility.
MS. KENT replied there might be a bit of misunderstanding. What
DEC would like to do is use the same permitting procedures to
apply to all of the facilities regardless of the source.
2:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON, observing the bill currently has a zero
fiscal note, inquired whether Amendment 2 would add a cost.
MS. KENT believed that Amendment 2 would not have a fiscal
impact on the department.
2:40:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined that it is everyone's goal to have
clean water regardless of the source of discharge. He
understood DEC's standards to say that clean water is how the
department wants to treat people equally and there are different
regulations to make sure that that happens with mixing zones.
It is not that people are being treated differently; it is that
the end result needs to be the same, and getting there is
different for each of the different users of the resources.
MS. KENT agreed.
2:41:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded members that by the statutes
establishing these critical habitat areas, the legislature has
said these areas are different. He maintained it is confusing
to say that the discharges of a city that is in a fixed point of
time and a fixed area should be treated the same as a mobile
discharger that can use holding tanks for its large load. To
not recognize the six specific areas that the legislature has
designated as critical habitats begs the question that DEC can
be allowed to determine whether additional discharges from
mobile sources can go in those areas. He urged the committee to
recognize the difference between the communities in the state
that are fixed and the mobile sources that come into an area and
to make the state's water quality be the best it can be by
adopting Amendment 2.
2:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, Seaton, and
Tarr voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives Hawker,
Johnson, Olson, P. Wilson, Feige, and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-6.
2:45:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.1, Nauman, 1/25/13, which read:
Page 3, line 23:
Delete "46.03.462(g), and 46.03.464"
Insert "and 46.03.462(g)"
Objection was voiced by Representatives Johnson and Hawker, and
Co-Chair Feige.
2:45:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR specified Amendment 3 would take away the
language in the bill that repeals the Science Advisory Panel.
She pointed out that under existing statute the panel's final
report is due on or before January 1, 2015; however, as
currently written, HB 80 would become effective immediately so
there would be no reason for the Science Advisory Panel to
complete its work. She stressed that there is strong dissenting
opinion [by a panel member] about the panel's draft report.
Amendment 3 would keep the panel in place, giving it the
opportunity to complete its work. She reminded members that a
big portion of what is being dealt with came through a citizen
initiative and some of the proposed actions overturn the will of
the voters.
2:46:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER inquired whether the Science Advisory Panel has
more work that it should do or whether information presented in
the panel's report indicates that more work would be productive.
MS. KENT emphasized the panel termed its report "preliminary"
rather than "draft" and said it is the panel's final working
product to date after an exhaustive review of technologies
available today and on the horizon; so, the panel really has
completed a complete version of the work it was asked to do.
The department did not ask the panel to produce a report, it
asked the panel to advise the department and a report was the
method the panel chose. Continued work by the panel would not
produce any new information, new data, or new treatment
technologies unless something miraculously appeared in the next
few years. She said these current permits are on a three-year
renewal cycle and most of DEC's permits are on a five-year
renewal cycle, and at a renewal cycle DEC always looks to see
what technologies are available. Additionally, DEC has explicit
authority in AS 46.03.488 to continue to push for continuous
improvements even without a science panel of experts. Some of
those provisions include authority for monitoring and studying
the direct or indirect environmental effects of those commercial
passenger vessels and researching ways to reduce the effects of
vessels on marine waters and other coastal resources. Thus, DEC
has "plenty of authority to continue the work to look for a
better mouse trap."
2:48:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked what the cost would be to
continue the Science Advisory Panel.
MS. KENT replied the panel has been working for parts of four
fiscal years. The total cost so far has been about $530,000 for
contractor costs, travel costs for panel members to attend
meetings, and doing the additional research that the panel asked
to be done.
2:49:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR underscored that once the statutory language
goes away DEC will have to come to the legislature for a budget
request because, while DEC would have the authority to do that
technological review, it would not have the funding necessary to
do it.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired whether keeping up with emerging
technologies is something DEC normally does as part of its day-
to-day duties or is something that would cost extra.
MS. KENT responded that it is part of what DEC does when issuing
permits and looking at permit renewals, so it is already
included in the DEC budget.
2:51:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned why the fiscal note is zero
rather than negative since costs will go away with elimination
of the Science Advisory Panel.
MS. KENT answered that when the Science Advisory Panel was set
up under House Bill 134, the department did not seek a budget
increment because it did not have a good feel for what it would
cost to do the work. She explained that DEC's budget is set up
for the cruise ship program such that there is a little bit of
money to do things like special studies and the department used
that funding to fund the panel. If the panel did not continue,
then that money would be rolled back into the permitting,
reviews, inspection, and other work done by DEC in association
with cruise ships.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER proffered that DEC would therefore have
the funds for a project without having to come back to the
legislature for an incremented budget request.
MS. KENT concurred.
2:53:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged keeping of the Science Advisory Panel
to investigate what is around the corner for technology. Since
many of the cruise lines are currently meeting the standards, he
did not want to see regression of the standards. When municipal
facilities do not meet the standards, the state does not reduce
its standards, he pointed out. The standards are kept so the
facilities can eventually get there. The goal is to have and
maintain high standards for Alaska waters and the Science
Advisory Panel leads the state in that direction.
2:54:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said was explained to her that while DEC
would have the statutory authority, it would not have the
funding necessary to bring together the technical experts at a
future date. Noting she is a person with a science background
in the professional world, she said that typically a final
report would include the dissenting opinion of one of the
panelists, and this absence from the panel's preliminary report
seems like a failure of that process.
2:55:32 PM
Objection to Amendment 3 was maintained by Representatives
Johnson and Hawker.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr and Tuck voted
in favor of Amendment 3. Representatives Hawker, Johnson,
Olson, Seaton, P. Wilson, Feige, and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 2-7.
2:56:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.2, Nauman, 1/25/13, which read:
Page 3, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 46.03.476(b) is amended to read:
(b) The ocean ranger shall
(1) monitor, observe, and record data and
information related to the engineering, sanitation,
and health related operations of the vessel, including
but not limited to registration, reporting, record-
keeping, and discharge functions required by state and
federal law; and
(2) for each month a large commercial
passenger vessel enters marine waters of the state,
(A) collect and test at least one
wastewater discharge sample; and
(B) report the test result for the
wastewater discharge sample collected under (A) of
this paragraph to the department.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.03.488 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The department shall publish the data
collected under AS 46.03.476(b)(2) on the department's
Internet website."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Objection was voiced by Representatives Johnson and Hawker, and
Co-Chair Feige.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained Amendment 4 would provide for DEC
to use a third party contractor to gather data so it would be
known what is going into cruise ship mixing zones. In addition
to providing for the ocean rangers who are already there to
gather this data, the amendment would require the data be posted
on the Internet for the public to see.
2:57:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether an ocean ranger has the
qualifications to do this proposed testing.
MS. KENT replied the primary qualification for an ocean ranger
is to be a U.S. Coast Guard licensed marine engineer, which does
not normally come with training in how to take, preserve, and
ship samples and handle proper chain of custody.
2:58:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired whether there would be associated
costs with the provisions of Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood the ocean rangers do conduct
sampling at the point of discharge, so since the rangers are
already there this would just be giving them another duty.
MS. KENT responded the ocean rangers do not currently take
samples, so they are not trained to do that and there would be
an additional cost to train them. The bill is unclear as to who
would be charged for the sample collection or for the sample
analysis.
2:59:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised the training cost would add up
to quite a bit.
MS. KENT answered there are 21 ocean rangers for coverage on
most of the vessels most of the time they are in Alaska waters.
She reminded members that a tremendous amount of monitoring is
required under the permit and this would be in addition to that
monitoring. Since some of the monitoring requirements are daily
or twice monthly, DEC already receives a lot of data about the
discharges.
3:00:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he believes the legislature does not
need to micromanage regulatory process because there is already
adequate statutory mandate upon the agency and upon whom the
mandate is being imposed to protect the state's waters. He read
some of the information-gathering requirements included under AS
46.03.465, which states in its entirety:
Sec. 46.03.465. Information-gathering requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of a commercial
passenger vessel shall maintain daily records related
to the period of operation while in the state,
detailing the dates, times, and locations, and the
volumes and flow rates of any discharges of sewage,
graywater, or other wastewaters into the marine waters
of the state, and provide electronic copies of those
records on a monthly basis to the department not later
than five days after each calendar month of operation
in state waters.
(b) While a commercial passenger vessel is
present in the marine waters of the state, the owner
or operator of the vessel shall provide an hourly
report of the vessel's location based on Global
Positioning System technology and collect routine
samples of the vessel's treated sewage, graywater, and
other wastewaters being discharged into marine waters
of the state with a sampling technique approved by the
department.
(c) While a commercial passenger vessel is
present in the marine waters of the state, the
department, or an independent contractor retained by
the department, may collect additional samples of the
vessel's treated sewage, graywater, and other
wastewaters being discharged into the marine waters of
the state.
(d) The owner or operator of a vessel required to
collect samples under (b) of this section shall ensure
that all sampling techniques and frequency of sampling
events are approved by the department in a manner
sufficient to ensure demonstration of compliance with
all discharge requirements under AS 46.03.462.
(e) The owner or operator of a commercial
passenger vessel shall pay for all reporting,
sampling, and testing of samples under this section.
(f) If the owner or operator of a commercial
passenger vessel has, when complying with another
state or federal law that requires substantially
equivalent information gathering, gathered the
information required under (a), (b), or (d) of this
section, the owner or operator shall be considered to
be in compliance with that subsection so long as the
information is also provided to the department.
(g) The department may exempt from the
requirements of (a) - (d) of this section the owner or
operator of a small commercial passenger vessel who
has a plan for alternative terms and conditions of
vessel discharges approved by the department under AS
46.03.462(c).
(h) On request, the owner or operator of a
commercial passenger vessel discharging wastewater
under AS 46.03.462(b) shall provide the department
with information relating to wastewater treatment,
pollution avoidance, and pollution reduction measures
used on the vessel, including testing and evaluation
procedures and economic and technical feasibility
analyses.
3:02:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated he cannot support Amendment 4
because testing wastewater discharge samples has not been within
the parameters of what an ocean ranger can do. Additionally,
testing should be done in a laboratory, not onboard the vessel.
3:03:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said she is most interested in the public
right to know aspect of lines 16-17 of Amendment 4, which would
require DEC to publish on its Internet web site the data
collected under AS 46.03.476(b)(2). Currently the data goes to
the department, but there is no easy way for the public to
access that information. Some cruise ships are operating on
continuous permits, meaning they are allowed to continually
discharge the entire time they are at port. If she were a
parent she would be concerned about her children playing in
nearby water. She therefore urged consideration of lines 16-17.
3:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said his intent was to help DEC be more
efficient by having a third party person take the samples since
that person was already there on the ship. However, after
hearing that training would be involved at a cost to DEC, he
said he would be open to a friendly amendment to delete the
first section of Amendment 4 and leave the second section [lines
15-17].
3:05:14 PM
No friendly amendment to Amendment 4 was offered. Objection to
the amendment was maintained by Representatives Johnson and
Hawker.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr and Tuck voted
in favor of Amendment 4. Representatives Johnson, Olson,
Seaton, P. Wilson, Hawker, Feige, and Saddler voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-7.
3:06:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 28-
GH1987\A.6, Nauman, 1/26/13, which read:
Page 3, following line 22:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 46.03.463(h) is amended to read:
(h) The provisions of (a) - (f), and (i) of this
section do not apply to discharges made for the
purpose of securing the safety of the commercial
passenger vessel or saving life at sea if all
reasonable precautions have been taken for the purpose
of preventing or minimizing the discharge.
* Sec. 6. AS 46.03.463 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(i) Except as provided in (h) of this section or
AS 46.03.462(c), a person may not discharge sewage,
graywater, or other wastewater from a commercial
passenger vessel into the marine waters of the state
that has a copper concentration of more than two parts
per billion for more than 10 minutes with a dilution
factor not greater than 50,000."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Objection was voiced by Representatives Johnson and Hawker, and
Co-Chair Feige.
3:06:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR said much time has been spent talking about
what level [of copper concentration] is appropriate to protect
salmon. She said putting into statute a [copper] standard of
two parts per billion (ppb), which she understood most of the
cruise ships can meet, would indicate the legislature's concern
for protecting the state's wild salmon. She offered to share
several scientific articles in this regard.
3:07:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER requested DEC to address the possible impacts
of Amendment 5.
MS. KENT stated this is another amendment that strays into
permitting. While DEC is concerned about copper, the concern
here is that the bill would be setting a discharge standard that
is not really based on available science. The science
demonstrating some behavioral issues on olfactory ability of
salmon is all done on freshwater and even the researchers doing
that work have said it cannot be translated to marine waters
because of the differing buffering capability in the marine
waters and because they cannot reflect the physiological changes
that occur in the fish as they are moving from saltwater to
freshwater. It is an area where more research is needed, but
DEC does not currently have something that is scientifically
defensible on which to base these standards.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held over HB 80.
3:08:45 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|