Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
02/18/2020 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB144 | |
| HB74 | |
| HB239 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 74 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 74-COMM. VESSEL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE/FEE
3:17:29 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 74, "An Act repealing the ocean
rangers program; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was committee substitute (CS) for HB 74,
Version 31-GH1117\S, Marx, 2/10/20, adopted on 2/11/20.]
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS took a brief at-ease.
3:21:14 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony during the
hearing on CSHB 74.
3:21:44 PM
TERRY HAINES, Councilmember, City of Kodiak, expressed his
belief that the concept behind CSHB 74 was promising. Under the
proposed legislation the ocean rangers would be replaced by
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) personnel, who
would have more authority and more ability to do testing. He
said that given the cost of the ocean ranger contract, there
would be "leeway to get quite a bit done." He expressed his
interest in funds for communities to improve wastewater
treatment systems. He said that for Kodiak to comply with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate, it must construct
an ultraviolet plant to treat wastewater before release. He
maintained that anything the city does to make its wastewater
cleaner is an improvement and of benefit to the business
community; the Alaska brand of pristine waters is what keeps
people coming to Alaska on cruise ships. He offered that CSHB
74 would serve a need in Alaska communities.
3:24:18 PM
JACK SLAGHT relayed that he holds a chief engineer unlimited
license in the U.S. Merchant Marine and understands the workings
of sewage treatment plants and oily water separators on ships.
He expressed his concern that cruise ship companies, which have
a poor track record of caring for American coastal waters, not
be allowed to operate unmonitored. He stated that adequately
treating water on shore and on ships is expensive. He advised
lawmakers to ensure that if ocean rangers are eliminated from
ships, then DEC personnel should oversee ship operations.
MR. SLAGHT confirmed for Representative Fields that he spent 25-
30 years as a marine engineer. Before that he was a logger,
timber faller, diesel mechanic, and in other occupations. He
maintained that he is not against "people making profits and
corporations succeeding," but his concern is that Alaska keep
its waters safe for the marine environment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether inspectors should be limited to
marine engineers or whether other potential licenses or training
would be adequate for that task.
MR. SLAGHT responded that DEC personnel probably would not
understand how the systems work as well as marine engineers;
however, they would be able to test affluent released from ships
and the treated sewage, and they could examine levels of fecal
coliform and chlorine. He suggested that oily water separators
would probably be under the purview of U.S. Coast Guard marine
safety inspectors; however, a seasoned, experienced,
knowledgeable, and licensed marine engineer officer would fully
understand oily water separators and sewage treatment plants.
3:29:03 PM
TIM NELICK relayed that he is a career merchant mariner and has
been an Alaska ocean ranger since 2012. He referred to the
proposal under CSHB 74, which would replace the ocean rangers
with DEC staff, and expressed his opinion that contract workers
are generally more efficient and cost-effective than government
workers. He related his experience operating vessels since
1970. He said that he knows how ships operate, knows their
impact on the environment, understands maritime regulatory
compliance, and understands the lack of compliance. He stated,
"I would guarantee that without a rigorous regimen of
verification, such has been provided by the rangers embarked on
the passenger vessels in Alaskan waters, regulations will be
broken." He maintained that whether it is done by contract
ocean rangers or DEC staff, rigorous regimen is required. The
forms of pollution include: wastewater; sewage; oil; oily
waste; exhaust gas; scrubber discharge; chemicals from pools,
spas, and barber shops; spillage of paint; incidental chemicals
from crew exterior maintenance; air pollution from the engines
and incinerators; garbage; and other pollutants. He stated,
"There are no reliable technical means for remotely detecting
these types of pollution, particularly when the ship - unlike a
stationary industrial site - gets underway, moves out of the
view of the scrutiny of shoreside oversight." He offered that
regarding the technical devices that have been mandated - the
oily water separators and the oil content monitors - workarounds
can be devised and rapidly implemented. "Simply knowing -
perhaps remotely - when valves are open and closed doesn't tell
us the whole story. What's flowing through those valves into
the waters of Alaska?" He maintained that logbook entries are
"simply ink on paper."
MR. NELICK relayed that in 2006, the voice of the Alaskan
citizenry was heard, and the Alaska Ocean Ranger Program was
initiated. Since then, opinion has not changed, and the
passengers of the vessels - from what he had heard - agree with
the mission of the program and are willing to support the
program. He said, "The rangers are the eyes, ears, and nose of
the State of Alaska 24 hours a day. Even our presence on board,
in and of itself, is a deterrent." He offered that self-
reporting of violations would likely decrease substantially as a
result of ocean rangers no longer being on board vessels. He
said that the program is self-funding; it is desired by the
electorate; it is desired by the passengers; and technical means
cannot replace the work of the ocean rangers. He suggested that
only a few vested interests oppose the Ocean Ranger Program.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the statute should continue to
require that a marine engineer conduct the inspections or
whether other options could be considered.
MR. NELICK emphasized the importance of environmental protection
to marine engineers; others may not have that dedication; and
there are ways to circumvent the proper operation of much of the
[pollution detection] equipment. He expressed his belief that
qualified marine engineers are what is needed - whether ocean
rangers or DEC staff. He asserted that knowledge of the
machines - their operation and how they can be circumvented - is
necessary.
3:35:03 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the scope of expertise of a
marine engineer.
MR. NELICK replied that marine engineering is a skilled trade;
it often begins with a degree in engineering, but on-the-job
training can be substituted. The job of the marine engineer is
to operate, maintain, and repair all the machinery necessary for
a modern vessel to operate.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered that the scope of the marine
engineer is any system on board that keeps the vessel
functional, including wastewater treatment and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC).
MR. NELICK concurred and added electrical power generation,
plumbing, and hydraulics; he concluded that it is a broad scope
of practice.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for a listing of the various waste streams
aboard a ship.
MR. NELICK mentioned the following: wastewater - which includes
graywater and sewage; wastewater streams from the galley,
swimming pools, spas, and barber shops; oil and oily waste;
incidental waste streams from everyday maintenance - chemicals
and cleaners; and garbage from the passengers. He cited the new
exhaust gas requirements making air pollution a consideration
with engine discharges and the exhaust of the incinerators.
3:39:42 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Nelick whether he is an active
ocean ranger and for a description of a typical day of an ocean
ranger.
MR. NELICK answered that ocean rangers serve as the eyes, ears,
and nose of the State of Alaska. In a 24-hour day he maintains
irregular work hours; he meets with the environmental officer to
coordinate operation of equipment and maintain logbooks; he
performs rounds with the officer to locations on the ship from
which waste streams are generated. Waste streams generated by
the engine room are of primary concern. He said he spends
several hours with the environmental officer and other officers
who are immediately involved with the operations associated with
wastewater. Findings are consolidated into a report which is
sent to the ocean ranger team leader and on to DEC.
MR. NELICK continued by saying that if there are signs of a
violation or of pollution, the observations will be reported.
The observations may be discoloration of the water, heavy stack
emissions, an unopened valve, the smell or sight of effluent
causing concern. He added that rangers also observe wastewater
samplings by the third-party [wastewater] analysis company.
3:44:09 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for more information on the
analysis company.
MR. NELICK replied that the company is Admiralty [Environmental]
in Juneau; there are 20-plus parameters that need to be tested
in the ship's wastewater effluent; testing is beyond the scope
of ocean rangers and shipboard staff, but rangers do witness the
sampling. The samples are sent to the company and analyzed.
3:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked how often the sampling and tests
occur.
MR. NELICK responded that it is common for a sampling event to
occur on every ship with an ocean ranger in the summer. He
estimated that it occurs several times per month, which includes
announced samplings.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what level of confidence an ocean
ranger can have that rules are being followed considering the
sheer size of the ships, number of systems on board, pipes, and
technology and the fact that an ocean ranger can be only at one
place at a time and must sleep.
MR. NELICK acknowledged that the ships are huge, and one person
can't be all places at one time every moment of the day. He
offered that ocean rangers do the best they can. He reminded
the representative that they are observers and not inspectors.
He said that much of what they do relies on intuition as
engineers - judging appearances, smells, and sounds; interacting
with the crew; assessing crew attitudes toward environmental
concerns; hunches and gut feelings; noticing small
irregularities. He stated that he tries to keep an irregular
schedule and be unpredictable in what he checks. He said, "I
would be less than forthright to suggest we would catch every
single instance of a bad actor, but I would suggest to you that
having us try to make the observations we can, as many as we
can, gives us a better chance at it."
3:50:35 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked, "To what extent do you feel like
there's a sort of a cat-and-mouse dynamic with the ship or staff
on board" versus the feeling that everything is forthright and
"you're just sort of checking boxes." He asked for the spectrum
encountered on different ships and different companies.
MR. NELICK answered that in his experience, much depends on the
rapport he establishes with the environmental officer on the
ship. He relayed that in his estimation, over the years these
officers have become more "tuned in" to sincere protection of
the environment. In the past they were assigned these duties
but normally had other duties. He added that currently when he
meets with a dedicated, professional, environmental officer, the
officer has a college level or graduate level degree in marine
sciences and - in his estimation - tend not to be deceptive or
less than forthright. He said that it could always change; he
is not a mind-reader. He acknowledged there are times when
someone seems to be hiding something, which spurs his interest;
but often the ship staff seem to support the overall goal of
protecting the environment and are putting forth that effort.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for confirmation that the answer
is, "It's a spectrum; it's a spread."
MR. NELICK agreed. He offered that efforts on board are
improving and ocean ranger scrutiny played a part.
3:53:17 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to Mr. Nelick's testimony that
ocean rangers are observers and asked about the contents of the
communication to DEC when reporting a finding.
MR. NELICK answered that there are different reports for
different events. A more impactful observation would receive
more prompt attention. A report of a spill goes immediately to
DEC and to the U.S. Coast Guard. Most of the time a report
would go through the ocean ranger manager.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS referred to testimony by Commissioner
Jason Brune (DEC) that there were six notices of violation
(NOVs) generated by the Ocean Ranger Program since its
inception. He asked whether six NOVs reflects a high level of
compliance by the industry.
MR. NELICK responded, "No ... that would not be my
interpretation." He offered that the NOV process is not
initiated by the ocean rangers; ocean rangers submit their
observations; whether those observations are processed as NOVs
is up to DEC. He suggested that the statistic may be misleading
for that reason. He offered that some ocean rangers are
frustrated when their findings result in no action. He
suggested the committee ask that question of the other ocean
ranger testifiers.
3:57:09 PM
GERSHON COHEN relayed that his involvement with the cruise ship
industry and wastewater discharges and violations spans 20
years; he served five years on the Commercial Passenger Vessel
Environmental Compliance task force in the early 2000s after it
became widely known that there had been widespread felony
convictions throughout the industry in six U.S. jurisdictions
including Alaska. He stated that the task force was not able to
convince DEC to pass any regulations of note to control ship
discharges. Consequently, the voter-approved Ballot Measure 2
was passed [2006] creating the Ocean Ranger Program; he was one
of its authors.
MR. COHEN maintained that CSHB 74 "hopes" for oversight rather
than "requires" it. He stated that currently statute requires
ocean rangers to be on board ships and requires them to perform
certain duties. The proposed legislation: 1) would repeal the
Ocean Ranger Program in its entirety; and 2) states that the
department can adopt regulations that may or may not result in
inspections by DEC staff or independent contractors while a ship
is underway. He cited page 2, lines 25-31, of CSHB 74, which
read:
(c) While a commercial passenger vessel is
present in the marine waters of the state, including
while underway, the department, or an independent
contractor retained by the department, may
(1) inspect systems that affect air
emissions or collect, treat, or dispose of wastewater;
and
(2) collect additional samples of the
vessel's treated sewage, graywater, and other
wastewaters being discharged into the marine waters of
the state.
MR. COHEN pointed out that "may" presents a "very different
world" from requiring in statute that inspections be performed
by someone on board.
4:00:00 PM
MR. COHEN noted that Commissioner Brune has made statements
suggesting that the Ocean Ranger Program was unnecessary and
unfair: unfair in the sense that Alaska does not observe other
dischargers in the way that it observes the cruise ship
industry; and unnecessary because of the low number of NOVs that
have occurred in the past 12 years. He responded that "there is
a world of difference" between a land-based discharger and a
marine discharger; they cannot be compared. He said that a
land-based discharger is stationary; DEC can visit it at any
time; and the discharge itself is fixed. An analysis of
background conditions can be performed to measure changes over
time in the area. A marine-based discharger presents a
completely different situation, especially with 30-plus ships
traveling up and down the inside passage over the course of the
summer. Multiple ships may discharge in the same waters on the
same day. That is why an ocean ranger needs to be on board.
MR. COHEN continued by saying that Commissioner Brune's comments
also seem to ignore the history of felony convictions. He said
that he is not aware of any other industry in Alaska with the
history of felony convictions like the cruise ship industry as
far as purposefully dumping pollutants overboard that
contaminate public waters. He mentioned that although there
have been only six NOVs over the course of the program, there
have been over 300 incident reports referred to DEC that did not
become NOVs. He relayed that regarding electronic monitoring,
it can provide information - when valves are open, the system
with which the valve functions, the ship with the valve, the
length of time the valve is open, and the volume of discharge;
however, it does not relay whether the equipment was "hacked" or
bypassed. He maintained that repeatedly members of the industry
have bypassed pollution control equipment to discharge
pollutants and falsified logbooks. He said that happened 20
years ago, and it happened just a few years ago. In 2016,
Princess Cruise Lines was convicted of purposefully bypassing
oil bilge water separators and submitting falsified logbooks to
the U.S. Coast Guard. He emphasized that these events support
having ocean rangers on board.
MR. COHEN offered that in addition to their duties as marine
engineers looking after the equipment on board, ocean rangers
are responsible for a broader set of public health related
observations. He mentioned the recent events with coronaviruses
on cruise ships and stressed the importance of having an ocean
ranger on board to monitor respiratory illnesses and the
infirmary. He concluded that ocean rangers perform many duties
that cannot be replaced by electronic monitoring; and under CSHB
74, electronic monitoring is not required but only incentivized
by a reduced fee. He maintained that the entire monitoring and
reporting system under the Ocean Ranger Program would be
eliminated with repeal of the program; the proposed legislation
would replace the program with a "hope" that DEC would adopt
meaningful regulations. He offered that public opinion on the
program has not changed; the program is paid for by fees from
the passengers; and there is no reason to discontinue it. He
added that regarding the use of the passenger fees for shoreside
facilities, he doubts that the tonnage clause [requiring the
fees be used to benefit ships, not passengers] would allow it.
4:07:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Cohen's opinion on the repeal of the
opportunity for citizens' suits [AS 46.03.481] under the
proposed legislation.
MR. COHEN stated that there have been no citizen suits since the
program started; however, he maintained that it represents an
opportunity for the public to hold the agencies and ship staff
accountable. He said he would not like to see that section
repealed.
4:08:44 PM
CHRIS SCHNEIDER testified that he has been an ocean ranger for
eight years. In his experience the cruise ship industry has
been good for tourism in Alaska. He mentioned the thousands of
employees on board and said that mistakes can be made. He
maintained that having ocean rangers on board serves as a good
deterrent [to polluting] and sets priorities [for ship staff].
He expressed his belief that there has not been enough
transparency with the Ocean Ranger Program; the public is not
aware of the program; and reports should be made public. He
stressed that before eliminating a program that the public voted
to have, the public should see the product of that program.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether marine engineers have the right
qualifications to do inspections.
MR. SCHNEIDER opined that using marine engineers is the easy way
to administer the program; they are very familiar with the
equipment. Other people could be trained, but it would be
difficult and take a long time.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Schneider what percentage of sailings
should have an inspector on board - either an ocean ranger or a
DEC employee.
MR. SCHNEIDER answered, "The more the better." He maintained
that having inspectors on board has been an effective deterrent.
He suggested that using only DEC staff would not be optimal; it
is difficult traveling in Southeast Alaska, even in the summer.
He mentioned that a mix of ocean rangers and DEC employees might
work out well. He stated that it is difficult to determine the
effectiveness of the program. He referred to the court-
appointed monitors required by the U.S. Department of Justice
(USDOJ) after Carnival Cruise Lines was cited [for environmental
violations and falsifying records]; teams of auditors flew in to
perform monitoring. He maintained that violations were found to
have occurred in many places but not in Alaska.
4:13:44 PM
ROBERT LAYKO relayed that he has worked in the cruise ship
industry for 40 years - 20 years as a marine engineer and 8
years as an ocean ranger. He maintained that if ocean rangers
were not on board ships, there would be many more incidents;
many would go unnoticed until it was too late. He stated that
as an ocean ranger, he would meet with the ship's environmental
officer and review the waste streams on ship. He described the
treatment of food waste on board; it is pulped and discharged
into the ocean; it is often contaminated with non-food items,
which must be discarded before discharge. He also mentioned
pollution caused by paint chips; crews are continually painting
the ships; sometimes they neglect to use containment for paint
chips. He reviewed the duties of the ocean ranger: monitor
wastewater and any waste, look for pollutant discharge into the
ocean, watch for illnesses, check sanitation practices, note any
potential hazards, and keep records. He maintained that without
ocean rangers on board, ship staff would just "do what they want
to do." He offered that DEC would not be able to effectively
monitor the ships, if inspection is performed only while the
ship is in port. He said that the program is working; he has
confidence that ocean ranger presence makes a difference. He
maintained that [marine engineer] experience is important for
effective monitoring. He added that the ships are only getting
bigger with more impact; he was on three ships last year with
6,000-plus people on board. He maintained that the few NOVs is
due to ocean rangers being on board ships. He mentioned the
violation that occurred in Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve [the illegal discharge of gray water in the park on
9/11/18]; there was no ranger on the ship; electronic monitoring
would not have discovered the discharge. He emphasized that if
the program is eliminated, Alaska would have many more problems.
4:18:57 PM
JEFF HOKKANEN testified that he was one of eight Alaskans in
last year's Ocean Ranger Program and has worked in the maritime
industry in Alaska since 1981. He stressed the importance of
good salaried jobs that the Ocean Ranger Program provides,
funded by passenger fees at no cost to Alaska, and having a
trickledown effect for the Alaska economy. He stated, "The
governor wants to repeal the program that I and many other
Alaskans voted for." He said, "Don't be fooled by all the
reasons that the commissioner gives for repealing the program."
He opined that Governor [Michael J. Dunleavy] wants to use the
funds to "grow government." He offered that it would be more
beneficial to keep the program as the voters wanted - to produce
jobs and protect the safety of the passengers and the
environment. He shared that ocean rangers can rectify
situations that can potentially cause problems.
4:23:23 PM
JOHN CLIFTON PASSMORE, paraphrased from his written testimony,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
My name is John Clifton Passmore and I am representing
myself. I am a resident of Eagle River, a US Coast
Guard licensed master mariner and an Ocean ranger. I
watched this Committee's previous hearing on HB 74 and
I would like to make a few comments.
First of all, there are a few good ideas in the bill.
Requiring the cruise lines to submit data in an
approved format should save the state time and money
and is in line with requirements for other monitoring
programs.
Random inspections may also be a way to improve the
program, although as I explained in my written
testimony, the devil will be in the details.
When voters including myself passed the ballot
initiative in 2006 establishing the Ocean Ranger
program it was out [sic] intent that the funds
collected for the Ocean Ranger program be used for
onboard monitoring by licensed engineers or
equivalently qualified individuals. Marine engineer[s]
are senior vessel personnel, ship officers, that meet
national and international standards for training and
competency. Licensed engineers, together with licensed
deck officers, are the men and women who operate the
ships. We are, contrary to statements by Commissioner
Brune, more than qualified to monitor cruise vessels.
The US Coast Guard has determined that we are
qualified [to] be legally responsible to operate large
vessels and follow all applicable laws, including
environmental laws. Most of us have unlimited tonnage
licenses, in other words, any vessel, any tonnage, any
waters, and many Ocean Ranger[s] are licensed chief
engineers, which is the highest engineering rating. 2
of us are master mariners and could take command of
any vessel, including cruise ships. We are the experts
on operating large vessels, and this is the reason
Ocean Ranger[s] are required to be licensed engineers
or equivalent.
Upgrading sewage treatment facilities in ports visited
by cruise ships is a good idea, but diverting funds
from the Ocean Ranger program is not the most
appropriate source. More appropriate sources include
revenue collected from cruise ships that is not
designated for the Ocean Ranger program.
Princess Cruise lines and its parent company Carnival,
are on probation for environmental violations and were
found in violation of conditions of probation in June
of 2019 and fined $20 million. My written testimony
included a link to the Court Appointed Monitor's
report from December 2019 showing a culture and
pattern of repeated violations of environmental laws,
including using heavy fuel near Glacier Bay last
August. If there is any doubt that some cruise lines
are not capable of policing themselves and cannot be
trusted to do the right thing, a few minutes of review
of this document will remove any doubt. Now is not the
time to remove monitoring requirements from convicted
felons that repeatedly violate conditions of probation
and allow them to police themselves, which is exactly
what HB 74 proposes.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Passmore to comment on reports of
violations sent to DEC which don't officially become NOVs.
MR. PASSMORE replied that with the exception of a spill - which
would require immediate action - ocean rangers report violations
to vessel personnel, send it to the [ocean ranger] company, and
the company sends it on to DEC; it is DEC's decision whether to
make it an NOV. Some incidents are minor.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether ocean rangers have
reported more serious violations that they thought constituted a
harm to clean water but did not generate an NOV.
MR. PASSMORE answered, "I believe so but I'm hearing them second
hand so ... I would hate to say for sure."
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked for confirmation that most marine
engineers have the capacity to take command of any vessel.
MR. PASSMORE answered that one must be a captain to take
command, but they can be responsible for all the machinery and
all the equipment on the vessel, including the pollution-related
equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether at any point an ocean ranger
would need to assume authority [as captain].
MR. PASSMORE replied, "No. We have the same licenses that the
guys that are operating the vessels do, so we understand what to
do."
4:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked about the qualifications to be an
ocean ranger and if there is an internship program for it.
MR. PASSMORE answered that the process for getting a marine
engineer's license or a deck license is generally a 4-year
degree through an academy and a series of tests; to advance to a
chief engineer takes another 1,060 days plus testing and
classes. He maintained that marine engineers become very
experienced through the process.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked about Mr. Passmore's personal
experience on board regarding the "cat-and-mouse" versus "boy
scout" spectrum question that he posed to Mr. Nelick.
MR. PASSMORE said that he has seen less of the cat-and-mouse and
more of either apathy or ignorance. He mentioned a discharge of
spa water because someone just started the job and didn't know
any better. In the incident of the paint chips going into the
ocean, the workers had the containment available but neglected
to move it to where they were working.
4:31:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested the possibility of "hybrid"
legislation to implement the "positives" in the proposed
legislation. She stated that the fiscal note (FN) for CSHB 74
[Office of Management & Budget (OMB) component Number 3204, page
2] requests two new Environmental Program Specialists and two
Engineers; therefore, although the Ocean Ranger Program would be
eliminated, the DEC hires would have the authority of DEC to act
immediately instead of through the [third-party] company and DEC
staff. She asked if that scenario offers using the expertise of
the engineers in a greater capacity.
MR. PASSMORE responded, "Possibly" but added that there would
not be a shipboard presence - or a shipboard presence would be
very rare; a shipboard presence is needed.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE referred again to page 2 of the FN to point
out that it states, "approximately 45 in-state trips would be
required for inspectors". She offered that the hope is that
Alaska would not be eliminating marine engineers and their
expertise but giving them more authority to act immediately -
cutting out the middleman. She maintained that expertise
without authority is not utilizing the personnel for maximum
impact. She urged the committee to look for a happy medium and
accept that change can be good. She suggested that there is
angst over the proposed legislation related to "something is
completely being lost"; her hope is to gain through CS HB 74;
more discussion is needed to determine what the regulations
would be.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the number of ocean rangers at sea
doing inspections at any given time during the summer.
MR. PASSMORE replied, around 15.
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for the name of the company that
had the Ocean Ranger Program contract.
MR. PASSMORE answered that it was Crowley [Maritime
Corporation].
4:36:45 PM
JOE GELDHOF testified that he was one of the principle authors
of the [Ballot Measure 2] initiative; he has been an Assistant
Attorney General; and he has been on contract with the Alaska
State Senate to address cruise ship revenue issues. He relayed
other work he has done relating to the maritime industry. He
stated that the large passenger vessels sailing in Alaska
present a significant regulatory challenge in terms of
protecting Alaska's marine waters. Vessels are mobile; there
are upwards of 1.5 million passengers on the vessels; it is a
dynamic industry; it is a capital- and labor-intensive industry;
the industry makes a great deal of money and provides many good
opportunities for Alaskans and visitors to the state. He said,
"I am not here to try to throttle the large [passenger ship]
industry; they have been good to Alaska; but they have real
problems with their marine and air discharges." He pointed out
that CSHB 74 focuses more on marine discharge, which is a
serious issue. He said that in addition to the passengers,
there is upward of 400,000 crew, who also create a large waste
stream.
MR. GELDHOF stated that DEC has had a casual attitude in dealing
with [waste discharges]; the attitude predates the current
administration; it is the reason citizens passed Ballot Measure
2 in 2006. He said that the leading proponents of the Ocean
Ranger Program and onboard monitoring were Alaska's fishing
fleet and Alaska Native women, out of concern for what was being
released into the waters. He continued by expressing his belief
that there is room for improvement in the existing program; he
offered his support for some electronic monitoring both to save
money and to provide real-time data for regulating industry -
whether by contract or by DEC. He said that the onboard
observer under the Ocean Ranger Program is a vital component of
enforcing Alaska's water quality standards. He compared
eliminating onboard observers with eliminating Alaska State
Troopers and relying on probation officer to do occasional
checks.
4:40:36 PM
MR. GELDHOF challenged the committee to make the proposed
legislation "the best possible bill." He said that could be
accomplished by requiring some limited monitoring; video
monitoring of the electronic monitoring is also a possibility.
He mentioned broadband and technical issues and the possibility
of legal issues regarding requiring hardware on ships. In order
to get data from the ships, the State of Alaska could offer to
incentivize or pay for electronic monitoring devices. He
maintained that Alaska needs to know when ship valves are open;
Alaska can use modern technology to improve enforcement and
protection of its waters. He emphasized that there needs to be
at least some ocean rangers; the department has the discretion
to put rangers on ships that have demonstrated repeated patterns
of abuse.
MR. GELDHOF maintained that it is the legislature's
responsibility to establish in law the minimum standards for
protecting Alaska's waters and the public's resources; the
department's job is to determine how best to administer that
law. He asserted that CSHB 74 gives DEC too much discretion for
setting standards through regulations. He supported unannounced
inspections and a layered monitoring approach - some full, some
part-time, some occasional through port inspections. He
recommended amplification of the existing penalties [for
violations] determined by reviewing the reports and the fines.
He said that by not examining and evaluating the value of
Alaska's marine waters, Alaska is doing its visitors and its
citizens a disservice. He pointed out the legal problems with
using passenger fees for improvement of shore sites; there must
be a strong nexus. He recommended that the existing financial
framework be kept in place with the $4 dollar per passenger
ocean ranger fee to operate the program to facilitate budgeting.
He suggested adding a $3 surcharge to capitalize improvements to
shore side facilities in places that experience ship discharges;
he suggested sunsetting the surcharge after ten years. He
concluded by saying that the ocean rangers do look at sanitation
in addition to gray water and wastewater [discharges]; giving
them additional authority to collect data for DEC and the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) on pathogens on
board is a good idea. He said that the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) monitors influenza viruses in
Southeast Alaska because it is often one of the first places
they are detected in Alaska. He maintained that is a role for
inspectors that should be explored.
4:47:17 PM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on CSHB 74.
[CSHB 74 was held over.]