Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/08/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB80 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 80 | ||
| *+ | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 8, 2013
9:01 a.m.
9:01:21 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Meyer called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Senator Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
ALSO PRESENT
Lynn Kent, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Michelle Bonnet Hale, Director, Water Quality
Division, Department of Environmental Conservation.
SUMMARY
HB 80 CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
HB 80 was REPORTED out of committee with "no
recommendation" and with one previously published
zero fiscal note: FN1 (DEC).
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."
9:01:54 AM
Co-Chair Meyer discussed that there had been a significant
amount of public testimony and communications on HB 80. An
opinion letter from the Department of Fish and Game had
been added to members' files (copy on file). He asked the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to address
the committee.
9:03:13 AM
LYNN KENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, did not have additional comments; she was
happy to answer any questions.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for an explanation of DEC's zero
fiscal note. Ms. Kent replied that the permitting regime
changes did not financially impact DEC. She explained that
when HB 134 had passed in 2009 the department had not
requested funding for the creation of the science advisory
panel. She relayed that DEC was looking forward to
returning to its work that had been deferred to accommodate
the panel.
Co-Chair Meyer queried whether DEC asked permit applicants
if they were using the latest technology. Ms. Kent replied
in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for confirmation that permit
applicants should use the latest technology. Ms. Kent
answered in the affirmative.
Senator Olson asked whether there were any studies that had
been done on the effects of copper on salmon migration. He
recalled that DEC had testified that there were no known
studies on copper's impact on fish.
Ms. Kent replied that DEC's water quality standards for
copper included standards for acute and chronic affects;
the standards were adopted based on Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) criteria. The criteria were
developed subsequent to many studies on the effects of
copper in fresh and marine waters. She stressed that DEC's
standards were based on a significant number of marine
water toxicity tests. The lack of studies for marine water
was related to behavioral effects that had been observed in
a couple of fresh water studies; researchers on the fresh
water study indicated that the data could not be
extrapolated to marine waters. She understood that an
additional study was underway related to behavioral affects
in marine waters; DEC would review the study when it became
available to determine whether it would drive a change to
water quality standards.
9:07:18 AM
Senator Olson referred to prior testimony by Dr. Koski
[Salmon Biologist, Juneau] who had mentioned a report on
copper and salmon by Dr. Carol Ann Woody and other. He
asked if there was a lack of validity to the studies that
had been underway for years.
Ms. Kent responded that Dr. Koski had referred to a
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
study by Nathaniel Scholz. She quoted from the study: "The
extent to which our results can be extended to fishes in
estuaries or salt water is less clear." She furthered that
chemical and physiological reasons were listed by the
researcher. She noted that the report recommended
additional studies using seawater acclimated fish because
the application of the freshwater studies was not clear.
The department was not disputing the freshwater work, but
there was currently no research or data to drive any
changes to the state's marine criteria for copper.
Senator Olson wondered why the law should be changed if
there was no conclusive evidence [on the impact of copper
on salmon]. Ms. Kent answered that the water quality
standards were a different set of regulations and issues
from permitting and what was covered under HB 80.
9:08:53 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that Senator Olson had covered
most of the responses included in the DFG letter. She
referred to an email received by members that referenced
the use of a preliminary report. She asked why the report
was called "preliminary."
Ms. Kent responded that the law requiring a report is a
report by the department to the legislature; the law spoke
to a preliminary and final report based on timing. She
elaborated that DEC provided a preliminary report in
January 2013 and would provide a final report in two years.
She furthered that the science advisory panel had elected
to provide its advice to DEC in a report and had used
"preliminary" as its report name as well. She emphasized
that the word preliminary should not be confused with the
word "draft." The panel had gone through multiple drafts
and had submitted a final report that provided a thorough
analysis of current, new, and emerging technologies.
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed to the removal of one person
from the scientific advisory panel. She asked if the person
had testified the prior day. Ms. Kent replied in the
negative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether the selection of
members had been based on geographic diversity, expertise,
or both. Ms. Kent responded that the panel had been made up
of both; the goal had been to include experts to help with
the analysis of technology.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked why one person had not been
moved forward for inclusion on the panel. She stated that
the person's removal had caused speculation that the
panel's information may be biased.
Ms. Kent answered that there had been a long list of
applicants for the advisory panel. One applicant had been
considered as a candidate, but there had been concern that
he may have been too strong an advocate due to his backing
of a citizen's initiative that had passed in 2006. The goal
had been to include people with expertise in wastewater
discharge treatment facilities specifically related to
their applicability on cruise ships.
9:12:24 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough communicated that committee members
had received emails stating that some systems removed
copper or metal products better than others; however, the
panel's report indicated that a single advanced treatment
system was not able to meet all of the quality standards.
She asked if the report's statement on the issue was true.
Ms. Kent answered that there was not any single vessel that
consistently met all of the standards.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked about Alaska's level of water
quality standards in comparison to other locations. Ms.
Kent assumed Vice-Chair Fairclough was referring to the
state's water quality standards as opposed to discharge
standards and permitting. She replied that Alaska's water
quality standards were primarily derived from the EPA and
EPA studies.
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed to language marked for
removal in the legislation: "If the keel of the vessel was
laid before January 1, 2004" (Section 2, lines 12 and 13).
She asked why the administration believed the removal of
the language was important.
Ms. Kent replied that the original intent of the language
was to provide relief to small commercial passenger vessels
that had been in operation and to push new small vessels to
meet the same point of discharge requirements; however, DEC
did not believe any vessels could meet the standards given
the results of the science advisory panel and DEC's
analysis of technology.
9:15:20 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough observed that the issue was heartfelt
and very important to many communities. She pointed to a
fear by communities that the bill would lower water quality
standards or allow sewage to be dumped along coastlines and
in waters where fish would be harmed. She stated that the
science panel did not reflect the comments. She remarked
that it did not appear that anything would change; permits
were issued because advanced waste water treatments could
not currently provide the desired outcome on a ship. She
continued that there was emerging technology on land that
proposed to take out copper and nickel in the future. She
asked for a comment on the issue.
Ms. Kent answered that the passage of HB 80 would not
permit cruise ships to make any changes to their current
treatment practices. She added that the ships treated to a
high level.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if DEC had the resources to
continue water quality testing to ensure the safety of
Alaska's waters. Ms. Kent affirmed that the program was
sufficiently funded.
Senator Olson referred to prior discussions about amending
the bill's effective date to 2020. He wondered if the state
would be adversely impacted if the effective date was
pushed out to 2020.
9:17:48 AM
Ms. Kent asked for verification that Senator Olson wondered
what would happen if the requirement to all water quality
standards at the point of discharge was extended until
2020.
Senator Olson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Kent believed
that in a few years DEC would present similar concerns that
vessels could not meet the stringent requirements for the
last four parameters in a few years.
Senator Olson asked for confirmation that there would be no
ill effects to Alaska, the industry, or to residents if the
effective date was amended to 2020. Ms. Kent answered that
the industry needed a significant amount of lead time to
plan its routes and itineraries; a delay would continue to
put industry in a bind. She surmised that the cruise
industry could provide a more detailed answer.
Senator Olson remarked that he did not realize the industry
was in a bind. Ms. Kent answered that without changes to
the current law the point of discharge requirements would
take effect in three years; companies were beginning to
plan itineraries for that time period.
Co-Chair Kelly asked whether fishing boats had to meet the
same standards as cruise ships. Ms. Kent replied in the
negative. Co-Chair Kelly asked whether boats in the Juneau
harbors had to meet the standards. Ms. Kent responded in
the negative. Co-Chair Kelly asked if coastal communities
were held to the standards. Ms. Kent answered in the
negative.
Co-Chair Kelly opined that communities should be looked at
if the concern was about pollution in Alaska's waters. He
asked for verification that communities and boats engaged
in commerce in Alaska were discharging pollution at a
higher rate than cruise ships. Ms. Kent answered that waste
water mixing zones were allowed, but the water was required
to be treated beforehand.
9:20:24 AM
Senator Dunleavy referred to prior public testimony by Mr.
Thoma. He asked for confirmation that the testifier was
satisfied with everything except for 4 issues in several
ships including zinc, copper, ammonia, and other.
Ms. Kent answered that the large commercial passenger
vessels were meeting all of the water quality standards at
the point of discharge with the exception of ammonia,
copper, nickel, and zinc.
Senator Dunleavy wondered whether smaller boats, harbors,
or other were monitored to the extent that the cruise ships
were monitored. Ms. Kent deferred the question to her
colleague.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, answered that
there were several permits covering smaller vessels. There
was a sampling requirement of twice per year for the small
commercial passenger vessel permit and the best management
practices plan. There were also U.S. Coast Guard
requirements that were oriented towards best management
practices for small vessels. Additionally, there was an EPA
vessel general permit that had some sampling requirements,
but the requirements did not typically apply to smaller
vessels.
9:23:11 AM
Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT HB 80 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
HB 80 was REPORTED out of committee with a "no
recommendation" and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (DEC).
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the schedule for the following
week.
ADJOURNMENT
9:25:03 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 80 ADF&G Letter.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2013 9:00:00 AM |
HB 80 |