Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/21/2000 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 21, 2000
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Allen Kemplen
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Vic Kohring
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 371
"An Act relating to certain passenger vessels transacting
business in the state or operating in the marine waters of the
state."
- MOVED CSHB 371(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 371
SHORT TITLE: REPORTS FROM MARINE PASSENGER VESSELS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/11/00 2184 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/11/00 2184 (H) TRA, L&C, RES, FIN
2/11/00 2184 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
3/21/00 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 430
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 371.
RON KREIZENBECK, Director
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Environmental Protection Agency - Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
GERSHON COHEN
(Address not provided)
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
ROBERT REGES, Citizen Member
Cruise Control Inc.
226 Saint Ann's Avenue
Douglas, Alaska 99824
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
MICHAEL CONWAY, Director
Division of Statewide Public Service
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
RANDY RAY, Representative
U.S. Cruise Ship Association
PO Box 979
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
ED PAGE, Captain
Chief of Staff
Marine Safety and Environmental Protection
17th Coast Guard District
U.S. Coast Guard
PO box 25517
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 371.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ANDREW HALCRO called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Halcro, Masek, Cowdery,
Kemplen, and Kookesh. No further members arrived after the call
to order.
HB 371 - REPORTS FROM MARINE PASSENGER VESSELS
CHAIRMAN HALCRO announced the first and only order of business as
House Bill 371, "An Act relating to certain passenger vessels
transacting business in the state or operating in the marine
waters of the state." [Not yet adopted was a proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00.]
Number 0049
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTTULA, Alaska State Legislature, came
before the committee to testify as sponsor of the bill. She
began by extending her thanks to those who have worked on the
bill and to those who are here to testify today. She also
thanked her staff - Karen Greeney and Gretchen Keiser - for their
work on the bill.
Number 0112
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA explained that she'd drafted the bill as
the result of a meeting in Juneau last December [1999], at which
time the cruise ship industry indicated there weren't many
problems with their waste management practices. She said:
The thing that really astonished me after sitting
through the meeting was the lack of information. The
lack of actual data about what was being discharged
into the air and into the water. There was also a true
disconnect between what I know from living in Juneau
and between ... what I was hearing at the meeting. I
can sit in my cousin's backyard on 6th Street [in
Juneau] on a windless, sunny day and smell fumes and
see the discharge.
Number 0192
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. This is a "right to know"
bill. It requires cruise ship companies to register with the
state, as most other businesses do in the state. And it requires
cruise ship companies to monitor, record and report pollutants,
as many other industries do in the state. She cited the seafood
processing industries, the oil industries and the mining
industries as examples.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. Why have this piece of
legislation? In 1999, according to the Environmental Protection
Agency, about 550 cruise ships visited the state which brought
about 600,000 people. She recognizes that the industry is an
economic benefit, for she grew up in Juneau part time and knows
the good that the industry has done for the town. At the same
time, however, the industry has brought in a lot of waste. She
cited Holland American and Royal Caribbean as examples. She also
noted that six cruise ship companies have recently been cited for
violating air admission standards.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA continued. The communities in coastal
Alaska have a right to know what is being discharged and how that
discharge is being handled. This legislation, she said, is a
true reporting bill; it doesn't affect a ship's actual
operations. She said:
Frankly, if they're doing most of what they say they're
doing, there really shouldn't be too much impact all
the way around. But until this step is taken, with the
lack of knowledge, I think, we'll continue to have
problems between the communities and the cruise ships.
A lot of the cruise industries have spoken to me and
have shown a lot of good faith in coming forward and
trying to work with DEC [Department of Environmental
Conservation], who's definitely trying. But, at this
point in our communities, we've just upped the bottom
wanting to know what's happening to us.
Number 0404
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY made a motion to adopt the proposed
CS for HB 371, version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00. There
being no objection, Version H was before the committee.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Representative Kerttula to explain the
changes in Version H.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the proposed CS changes
the size of the vessels to "300 gross registered tons or greater"
in order to be consistent with federal law, and because it tends
to be the natural breaking point in federal regulations. She
further noted that minor changes were made throughout the
proposed committee substitute in response to a recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision, the "Intertanko" decision, which broadly
preempts state laws. Changes were made to the proposed committee
substitute so that the industry doesn't have to retro-fit or
change the design of their vessels. The proposed committee
substitute also ties in a penalty provision that DEC already has
in statute for falsifying a report or registration. The proposed
CS also changes the language from "shall" to "may" on page 2,
line 30, to "steer clear" of any preemption problems. It also
changes the language on page 3, line 14, to make it easier for
the industry to make a report. Last, it clarifies the language
on page 5, lines 16-19, to clear up the $50-a-day noncompliance
penalty.
Number 0596
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether
cruise ships have to have a business license.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that cruise ships do not have
the same reporting requirements, which is the reason for the
bill, but she's not sure about licensing.
[Robert Reges [Cruise Control Inc.] indicated from the audience
that cruise ships do not have to be licensed by the City &
Borough of Juneau like other businesses. Randy Ray [U.S. Cruise
Ship Association] indicated from the audience that cruise ships
carrying a U.S. flag are licensed by the state. He cannot speak
to cruise ships carrying a foreign flag, however.]
Number 0662
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether she
has a list of all the regulations that impact the cruise ship
industry at the present time.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to a table prepared by her
staff, which outlines the monitoring requirements, the
recordkeeping requirements, and the reporting requirements for a
number of different pollutants. The table illustrates the
inconsistencies and holes, which is why the bill simply asks for
a report.
Number 0759
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether she
is saying all the pollutants listed in the table should be
required.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied that the bill calls for cruise
ships to monitor pollutants being discharged. She reiterated
that other industries monitor and report discharges. This
legislation would bring the cruise ship industry on a par with
other industries.
Number 0804
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether
everything is monitored for those industries or whether there is
spot-monitoring.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied she's not sure; she would get
back to him with information. In terms of discharges, she said,
those industries have to monitor themselves quite heavily.
Number 0819
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula for a more
complete list of regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated that she would get that to him
as soon as she receives more information from the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Number 0865
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the
U.S. Coast Guard has regulations pertaining to onshore and
offshore limitations for the discharge of waste.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA deferred the question to a representative
of the U.S. Coast Guard. She noted, however, that there have
been problems with the "doughnut holes" in Southeast Alaska,
which are holes within the Inside Passage that are more than
three miles from the mainland and any island that have to deal
with both state and federal jurisdictions. International
treaties play a part as well, which is why this legislation tries
to avoid any preemption issues.
Number 0924
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the
doughnut holes are addressed in the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA replied, "No." She didn't want to take
on that issue, she said, but the cruise ship industry has agreed
to comply with the law within the holes.
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Representative Kerttula whether the
boat harbors in Juneau have facilities for those who live on
their boats. What does a person do with his/her waste?
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA deferred the question to a representative
of the City & Borough of Juneau. She noted that there are some
treatment requirements for boats that have a toilet, but there
are different requirements for boats that do not have a toilet.
Number 1010
RON KREIZENBECK, Director, Office of Enforcement and Compliance,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, testified via off-net
from Seattle. He told members he has been working with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Coast Guard,
the cruise ship industry and the communities of Southeast Alaska
as a member of a steering committee that is dealing with these
issues. He thinks that the proposed committee substitute gets at
the crux of the issue, for information about what is going on has
not been forthcoming. This legislation is a step in the right
direction.
Number 1037
GERSHON COHEN testified via teleconference from an off-net
location. He read the following into the record:
My name is Gershon Cohen, and I have lived in Southeast
Alaska for nearly 20 years. I have a Master's Degree
in molecular biology, and a Ph.D. in environmental
policy. I'm a national project director on water
quality issues for the Earth Island Institute.
Today's cruise ships are floating cities transporting
more than 5,000 passengers and crew. A typical ship
generates, on every one-week voyage, approximately:
- 210,000 gallons of raw and treated sewage;
- 1,000,000 gallons of graywater containing
solvents, detergents, and pesticides;
- 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water;
- 110 gallons of photo chemicals;
- 5 gallons of dry-cleaning waste;
- 10 gallons of used paints; and
- 5 gallons of expired chemicals.
That's a one-week voyage for a ship that's traveling to
Southeast Alaska. Despite the industry's environmental
record, which unfortunately at this point would have
to be considered abysmal, no one will be monitoring
discharges from the ships this summer. HB 371 is an
effort to close this information gap. As
Representative Kerttula said a few minutes ago, the
bill will accomplish three desperately needed
objectives:
1) Establish a "responsible party" for each ship
at the beginning of every calendar year;
2) Require that one a month ships will voluntarily
determine and report the quantity, composition,
and discharge location for their waste streams and
record visible air emissions while in port; and
3) Require an accounting of all hazardous and
solid wastes off loaded for transport to a
licensed treatment facility.
I think there are two fundamental issues here that must
be recognized:
1) The pubic has a right and a need to know what
is being released from the ships. We have no idea
if the legal wastes being released are a problem
or not - or whether some ships perform better than
others; and
2) The bill would really just level the playing
field with other discharging industry. Again, as
Kerttula mentioned earlier, the oil, timber,
mining and seafood processing industries all
submit monthly monitoring reports that cover their
waste stream discharges.
This bill is not intended to, nor will it chase the
cruise ships away. It simply recognizes that both the
industry and the public have needs. The industry needs
Alaska as a destination, and Alaskans need clean air
and clean water, as well as an active economy.
Fortunately, these needs are not incompatible.
However, the people of this state need, and have a
right, to know what is in the multi-million gallon
waste streams being released within short distances of
our towns and fishing grounds.
And, with all due respect, I hope the committee is
aware of how many Alaskans from all over the state are
in favor of gaining some control over these discharges.
So, I hope you will find in favor of this legislation
today. And I thank you very much for the opportunity
to comment.
Number 1240
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen how he has determined that
the cruise ship industry would not be impacted by these
regulations.
MR. COHEN replied, given their level of profits, they would not
be impacted by these regulations. He cited that Royal Caribbean
made about a million dollars a day in profits last year.
Number 1292
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen whether he doesn't believe
that any industry should make a profit of a million dollars.
MR. COHEN replied no, he doesn't have a problem with Royal
Caribbean's profit margin; he just doesn't feel that the impact
of this legislation would be significant to its ability to
conduct business in the state.
Number 1329
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen: How far does a ship have
to be offshore to dump sewage waste?
MR. COHEN deferred the question to a representative of the U.S.
Coast Guard. It's his understanding that treated sewage can be
discharged anywhere, he said, and that raw sewage has to be
discharged at a point more than three miles from shore. He
pointed out that graywater is a great concern to those living in
Southeast Alaska because it can be discharged anywhere, and
graywater contains many solvents and detergents. It's a problem
in Haines because the ships dock in front of the town and in
front of the beach where the children swim; at this point, it is
not know what exactly is being discharged.
Number 1442
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Cohen how he came up with the
list of pollutants mentioned in his testimony, if it is not known
what is being discharged.
MR. COHEN replied that the categories of pollutants that he
mentioned came from the Royal Caribbean web site.
Number 1490
ROBERT REGES, Citizen Member, Cruise Control Inc., came before
the committee to testify. He has been a resident of Alaska since
1977. He has lived in both Juneau and Fairbanks. He is an
attorney who specializes in environmental and natural resources
law. His firm primarily represents the industry. He is here
today to speak in favor of the bill. It will level the playing
field with the shore-based industries that incur costs for
recording, monitoring and reporting waste. There is no doubt
that shore-based industries are subject to the jurisdictions of
the various environmental laws, yet there is doubt as to which
laws apply to transient vessels that carry a foreign flag.
Number 1543
MR. REGES continued. When he worked for the Department of Law as
the attorney who handled enforcement actions for the Department
of Environmental Conservation, he was amazed to find out that
Regency Cruise Lines, which is no longer in business, did not
have an agent for service of process in the state. Had they
never declared bankruptcy in the state of New York, he said, the
state of Alaska may not have found them to serve them with a
lawsuit.
Number 1597
MR. REGES continued. This legislation addresses the concept of
registering and licensing in order for a business to avail itself
to services provided by the state, specifically access to the
courts. He said,
If you are a builder, let's say, a developer or a bank
or another business licensed in the Lower 48, an
insurance company, you can't do business here in Alaska
unless you register. And if you don't register, you're
not allowed to bring a claim or counterclaim. You're
not allowed to defend yourself and use our courts.
That's the penalty, if you will, for not coming forward
ahead of time and telling us who you are, what you're
gonna do here and ... what impacts you're gonna have.
So, those are some of the provisions in the bill, sort
of the threshold provisions, if you will, before you
even get to the monitoring, and record keeping and
recording, which to me are very basic matters that all
of my clients, my shore-based clients have to comply
with. And I don't know why we'd would give an economic
advantage to the foreign flagged vessels.
Number 1659
MR. REGES continued. With regard to the bill itself, there has
been a concerted effort to review existing regulatory programs to
avoid redundancy. There may be some, he said, but he is
confident that as the bill moves through the process they will be
eliminated. He asserted that the reporting requirements hit
close to home, for he sat on a committee that looked at the issue
of the cruise ships overloading Juneau's incinerator during the
summer. The committee couldn't get any information from the
cruise ships to help them solve the problem. He also noted that
Juneau residents participate in household hazardous waste
collection days for batteries and the such, yet the cruise ships
don't participate even though they are essentially floating
households. These issues are a matter of local concern. He
further noted that the cruise lines themselves have policies in
place that meet or exceed the stringent environmental standards,
yet those same companies have indicated that there is a problem
due to a lack of credibility. He said,
Well, if you want credibility, I know from representing
industry, bring forth the evidence that you're doing it
right. You tell me you have policies in place. You
tell me you're doing it right. You ought to be
supporting something like this.
Number 1891
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Reges whether anybody monitors
him to make sure that he disposes of his batteries properly.
MR. REGES replied that the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Environmental Conservation periodically monitor
landfills to ensure that they are not accepting household
hazardous wastes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, however, that nobody comes and
monitors him personally or the public, for that matter.
MR. REGES explained that he is asked before entering the
landfill; otherwise, the collection agency is responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, if somebody dumps a battery into a
garbage can, chances are it won't be found.
MR. REGES replied that seems like a rational conclusion.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said the private sector really isn't
monitored; it's more of an honor system.
MR. REGES pointed out that monitoring, as indicated in the bill,
is directed at the industry, not the consumer.
Number 1982
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Reges whether he primarily represents
the cruise ship industry.
MR. REGES replied no, he is not here today on behalf of the
cruise ship industry; he is here today as a citizen member of
Cruise Control Inc., a nonprofit corporation advocating for
responsible tourism.
Number 2012
MICHAEL CONWAY, Director, Division of Statewide Public Service,
Department of Environmental Conservation, came before the
committee to testify. He told the committee that the department
shares Representative Kerttula's goals and appreciates her
efforts. The department agrees that more information is needed
about cruise ship discharges and admissions. Right or wrong, he
said, the department doesn't have the facts, which is
unacceptable. The department has established four work groups
and has given them wide latitude to verify the problems and make
advisory recommendations to a steering committee consisting of
the cruise ship industry, the Coast Guard, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and various communities. The oil spill
response group, he noted, is looking at how to improve response
capabilities for oil spills. The air quality group, the water
quality group and the environmental leadership group are being
co-chaired by a combination of federal and state representatives.
Number 2110
MR. CONWAY continued. The results of these work groups could
include monitoring and reporting requirements, changes to
operating procedures, new equipment, potential permitting
activities, et cetera. The department is looking at short-term
recommendations by early May [2000], but it may take several
years to implement the more complex solutions. He said,
If the legislature and the public would like to
institutionalize an ongoing reporting system, that's
okay with us. We also support the people's right to
know. One note of caution. We may find this
particular reporting system is not exactly what we need
in the future after a further analysis of the
information and issues and discussions with the work
groups members and the steering committee. If the bill
passes this year, we would like to have the opportunity
to suggest changes to these requirements down the line
based upon our analysis of the information we gather.
Number 2153
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Conway whether Commissioner Michele
Brown [Department of Environmental Conservation] has a position
on the bill.
MR. CONWAY replied that the department's energy is going towards
the steering committee and work groups, which is a parallel
effort to the legislation.
Number 2172
CHAIRMAN HALCRO indicated that the industry is concerned because
that parallel effort may be putting the "cart before the horse."
In other words, legislation is being put forth, while at the same
time, work groups are still trying to "hammer out" certain
issues. He asked Mr. Conway whether the department is concerned
that the legislation is getting ahead of the process that they
have already started to undertake.
MR. CONWAY replied that the department isn't concerned about the
legislation. The department is focusing their energy on the
other processes.
Number 2212
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Conway whether bioremediation is
being considered as an acceptable way to clean up discharge.
MR. CONWAY replied that those sorts of response techniques are
approved on a case-by-case basis by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard.
Number 2262
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he'd asked because ballast water
from the oil tankers in Valdez is treated, then returned to the
water cleaner than what it was before.
MR. CONWAY commented that the Valdez Marine Terminal has a state-
of-the-art treatment system for ballast water. But ballast water
is not of a concern, primarily because it is handled where
vessels receive their fuel; in this case, that's either Vancouver
or Seattle. Furthermore, water that has come in contact with
residual fuel and pumped to a treatment facility is an
operational requirement. This bill deals only with reporting
requirements. He said:
I just wanted to make the point that if there are
operational kinds of requirements for treatment
facilities and there is state-of-the-art technology to
be able to do that it costs money. So, ... that's not
what we have been looking at because we ... believe
there's a lot of operational controls that can be done
to minimize the impacts and still allow the industry to
operate vigorously.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated that he is questioning why the
cruise ships couldn't do the same for ballast water, but on a
smaller scale.
MR. CONWAY commented that the water quality work group has
indicated that the cruise ship industry is exploring new
developments and treatments.
Number 2396
RANDY RAY, Representative, U.S. Cruise Ship Association [USCSA],
came before the committee to testify. The USCSA is a new
organization consisting of U.S. flagged cruise ship lines. They
came together because of the governmental concerns of the cruise
ship industry, for U.S. flagged vessels also discharge graywater,
black water, and the occasional unplanned discharge. But U.S.
flagged vessels are different in terms of load, risk, and
oversight. The most obvious difference is size. The association
represents boats that hold 12 to 138 passengers. In terms of
load, graywater comes from the galleys, bars, sinks, and showers.
Black water comes from the toilet systems. The average discharge
for gray and black water is between 1,000 to 6,000 gallons a day,
which equates to about a city of 100 people.
TAPE 00-22, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. RAY continued. In terms of risk, the vessels that the
association represents do not have dry-cleaning facilities,
laundry facilities, print shops, photo processing labs or hair
salons. They use local vendors for those services.
MR. RAY continued. In terms of oversight, the Coast Guard
inspects all foreign and domestic flagged cruise vessels. But
foreign vessels are built and repaired in foreign ship yards
without Coast Guard supervision, while domestic vessels are built
and repaired in domestic ship yards with Coast Guard oversight
and U.S. licensed crews. In terms of environmental oversight,
some infractions are turned over to the home port of the vessel,
which means that some are never resolved. A violation of a
domestic vessel is adjudicated in the U.S.
MR. RAY continued. U.S. flagged cruise vessels focus on eco-
tourism. They do not fall under this legislation because of
their size, but they are committed to meet the spirit of it and
the intent of the work groups established by the Department of
Environmental Conservation. This summer they will be contracting
with a lab in Juneau to sample and test the content of their gray
and black water, which will be provided to the legislature and
the Department of Environmental Conservation. The association
hopes to show Alaskans that they need not be concerned about U.S.
flagged vessels.
Number 0121
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Ray whether the vessels that he
represents would not fall under this legislation.
MR. RAY replied correct. They are under 300 gross registered
tons.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked whether the USCSA has taken a position on
the bill.
MR. RAY replied that the association hasn't taken a position on
the bill because they aren't covered by it. He is present today
to express that they plan to meet the intent of the legislation,
and that they plan to provide gray and black water monitoring
results to the state.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Mr. Ray whether the USCSA recognizes the
fact that local communities should have a right to know what's
happening in their waters.
MR. RAY replied, "Yes." The vessels that he represents employ
many Alaskans as naturalists, geologists and marine biologists.
Number 0162
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Ray to explain to committee
members why it's important that vessels do not have dry-cleaning
facilities, hair salons, et cetera.
MR. RAY explained that it's important because silver sometimes
gets through the systems, which is a heavy metal and very toxic
in a marine environment.
Number 0222
ED PAGE, Captain; and Chief of Staff, Marine Safety and
Environmental Protection, 17th Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast
Guard, came before the committee to testify. The U.S. Coast
Guard has been very active in the work groups and steering
committee, for they share in the concerns and are one of the
primary regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with various
environmental regulations. He noted that the genesis of these
concerns is the direct result of findings from U.S. Coast Guard
overflights and inspections of a few cruise line vessels. He
further noted that there are a sweep of regulations that cover
these concerns and that the U.S. Coast Guard has been raising the
bar voluntarily to improve them.
CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The issues that Representative Kerttula
brought up are not fully addressed at this point in time, which
is why there are work groups; in that way, they can accelerate
the process.
CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The U.S. Coast Guard looks at emissions
and discharges differently. For example, treated graywater can
be discharged anywhere offshore. Treated black water can be
discharged in internal waters, and untreated black water can be
discharged at sea or three miles offshore. MARPOL 1
[International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution]
allows for the discharge of ballast water, if it's less than 15
parts per million near shore or offshore. MARPOL 5 allows for
the discharge of treated garbage three miles offshore and
floating garbage twelve miles offshore.
CAPTAIN PAGE continued. The U.S. Coast Guard boards vessels four
times a year and conducts inspections on both safety and
environmental regulations. They look at the type of garbage
generated, how it is incinerated, and where it is discharged. In
most cases, it is recycled and returned to Vancouver for
discharge. They also look at the sewage treatment system and if
there are any questions samples are taken. The Coast Guard also
conducts overflights with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters to
inspect the waters to ensure that cruise ships are not
discharging oil. The Coast Guard appreciates the concerns and
efforts of those involved, and because of those efforts, they
think that this year will be better than last year, and that
there will be better systems in place in the future.
Number 0517
CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that it seems the work groups are focusing
on policy. He asked Captain Page whether there is any work being
done on reporting.
CAPTAIN PAGE replied, not that he can recall. Right now,
reporting is handled by recordkeeping. For example, a log is
kept for garbage, but there is no reporting requirements for
graywater or black water.
Number 0647
CHAIRMAN HALCRO asked Captain Page whether the argument could be
made that this bill is a nice support piece for the policies that
are being put in place.
CAPTAIN PAGE replied, "Yes." The bill complements some of the
efforts, and in some cases it offers a different spin or
approach. For example, MARPOL 5 requires a log to be kept and
available for inspection, while the bill requires a report to the
state. Similarly, the U.S. Coast Guard doesn't require any type
of reporting for graywater because it's legal to discharge it
anywhere. It's an automatic process. When the tank is full, it
is discharged. There is no equipment that indicates when it is
being discharged.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO closed the meeting to public testimony.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO indicated he'd originally planned to hold the
bill in committee, but in listening to the testimony and looking
around the room and seeing a lack of representation from the
larger cruise ships, he would assume that they are not opposed to
the bill. He said he would entertain a motion to move the bill
out of committee.
Number 0698
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN KEMPLEN made a motion to move CSHB 371,
version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach, 3/17/00, out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK objected. She referred to an
article written by Commissioner Michele Brown and Mr. Thomas
Barrett, dated March 17, 2000, in the Anchorage Daily News. The
article refers to the work groups and steering committee, which
appear to have an aggressive schedule and are working together
with those involved, she said. The bill isn't necessary. It's
reinventing the wheel. For those reasons, she objects to moving
the bill forward.
Number 0853
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY objected as well. He is not convinced
that the system needs to be fixed, he explained. He would like
to hold the bill in committee until more information is provided
on the existing regulations.
Number 0876
CHAIRMAN HALCRO stated that the testimony has indicated that the
work groups are busy focusing on policies and regulations, and
that there are several holes with regard to reporting. As
Captain Page indicated, there are several areas where this bill
would compliment the existing efforts under way. Moreover, given
the unfortunate dumping incident last year in Southeast Alaska,
too much information is not a bad thing. This bill also has
three additional committees of referral; any new information that
comes to life could be presented in any one of those committees.
He would tend to believe the well-educated testimony from the
individuals involved in the process rather than a newspaper
article taken out of context.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated that she does not appreciate the
words Chairman Halcro is using in reference to the newspaper
article. It was written by the commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources, who is actively involved in the effort.
CHAIRMAN HALCRO replied that he has read the article as well, but
given the testimony from those who are well-versed in the
procedures, processes and work groups, he would take their word
in addition to that of Commissioner Brown's. Furthermore, Mr.
Conway of DEC has indicated that the commissioner is pretty much
in support of the legislation.
Number 0969
REPRESENTATIVE ALBERT KOOKESH stated that he tends to believe
those who testify, because they strongly believe in what they say
and put a lot of time and effort into their theories. They
deserve credit for coming forward. He also appreciates newspaper
articles. He can't believe that Commissioner Brown would
disagree with this legislation; otherwise, the representative
from the department would have indicated so. In response to
Representative Cowdery's comment, he said there isn't a system in
place to break. Moreover, since he lives in Southeast Alaska, he
is concerned about its waters; there will be a time when there is
a problem in another area of the state, and he will also listen
to those from that area. He thinks people ought to give those
who represent Southeast Alaska and the waters thereof some due
respect. He will vote to move the bill forward.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated that he thinks the bill doesn't
recognize the degree of regulations already in place. He asked
whether the ferry system would fall under the same regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA answered that a ferry over 300 gross
registered tons would fall under the bill; she wasn't certain,
however, of the weight of any of the ferries. She pointed out
that the ferry system does not have services onboard like hair
salons and photo-processing labs.
Number 1099
CHAIRMAN HALCRO pointed out that SB 273, which also deals with
tonnage and reporting requirements, is now working its way
through the Senate.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Halcro, Kookesh and
Kemplen voted to move CSHB 371, version 1-LS1327\H, Lauterbach,
3/17/00, out of committee. Representatives Masek and Cowdery
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 371(TRA) so moved from the
House Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 3-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, Chairman
Halcro adjourned the House Transportation Standing Committee
meeting at 2:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|