Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/13/2019 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
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 | |
| SB70 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 70 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 70-REPEAL IND. OCEAN POLLUTION MONITORS/FEE
3:31:03 PM
CHAIR BIRCH announced the consideration of Senate Bill 70 (SB
70). He said SB 70 is an act that repeals the Ocean Rangers
program by the Senate Rules Committee at the request of the
governor.
3:32:00 PM
JASON BRUNE, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, explained that the Ocean Rangers
program was implemented as part of a ballot initiative that
passed by a slim margin on August 22, 2006. He said when he took
on the role of commissioner for the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Governor Dunleavy tasked each
of his commissioners to make Alaska open for business. He said
based on the governor's request, he asked his DEC team to
identify overly burdensome regulations that are inefficient at
meeting DEC's mission of protecting human health and the
environment, that treat some industries inconsistently with
other industries, and ones that are disproportionate with the
risks posed. The Ocean Ranger program was top on the list
because of its high relative cost to its value.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE pointed out that Major industries in Alaska
with air emissions, wastewater discharges, potential for
significant oil spills, and solid waste disposal requirements,
are regulated via DEC authorizations that includes self-
monitoring and reporting, and both announced and unannounced
inspections by DEC. No other industry in the state is subjected
to 24/7 onsite observers, despite other industries posing a
potentially greater human health and environmental risk. In
Alaska, there are no mining rangers, oil rangers, fish
processing rangers, or timber rangers. He asked why there should
be cruise ship ocean rangers.
He explained that today's large cruise ships that visit Alaska
either don't discharge in Alaskan waters or have an advanced
wastewater treatment system that intermittently discharges
cleaner wastewater than most community-based wastewater
treatment systems the discharges 24/7; for example, the
discharges that cruise ships have in Alaskan waters can only
contain 40-fecal-coliform bacteria per one-third cup of water.
He noted that one wastewater treatment plant in one port
community is permitted to discharge 1.5 million of the same
fecal coliform bacteria per one-third cup of water. DEC has
sufficient latitude and authority to inspect any property or
premises with suspected sources of pollution or contamination,
or to ascertain compliance or noncompliance with a regulation.
DEC does not need the statute establishing Ocean Rangers for
inspections.
He detailed that the Ocean Ranger program is funded by a $4 per
lower berth fee which results in approximately $4 million
annually in Ocean Ranger receipts. The Ocean Ranger fee is used
to hire a contractor that employs predominantly out-of-state
marine engineers. Ocean Rangers have made 6 observations over 11
years that have led to state-issued notices of violation. He
pointed out that the Ocean Rangers' presence onboard does
provide some deterrent value, but the value to the state of
Alaska is not commensurate with the money that is being spent
nor the risk posed. If the Ocean Ranger was funded entirely by
general fund dollars, the program would have been eliminated
years ago.
He said the argument has been made that since the Ocean Ranger
program does not have an impact on the state's coffers, DEC
should not be dealing with SB 70, a sentiment that he disagrees
with. To show that Alaska is open for business and encouraging
new investment into the state, Alaska must treat its industries
firmly but fairly and be good stewards not only to the state's
money, but also of the cruise ship passengers who pay the fees
and are significant contributors to Alaska's tourism industry.
He said Andrew Sayers-Fay, DEC's Director of Water, will address
the specifics of SB 70.
3:32:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL joined the committee meeting.
3:32:42 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee meeting.
3:36:29 PM
ANDREW SAYERS-FAY, Director, Division of Water, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, said
the department believes SB 70 is legislation that shows good
stewardship of other people's money, whether given by the state
or collected from cruise ship passengers. He provided an
overview for the repeal of the Ocean Ranger program as follows:
• Identified as a non-essential program in the governor's
amended FY2020 budget.
• Ocean Ranger program is costly for its outcomes:
o $3.8 million per year in Ocean Ranger fees.
• No other permitted industry is subject to 24/7 onsite
observers including:
o Wastewater discharges to land and water.
o Domestic, industrial, mining, oil & gas, seafood, etc.
o Air emissions.
o Regulated mobile and stationary sources.
o Hazardous and solid waste facilities.
o Food establishments, tattoo parlors, pools, and spas.
• Department has other resources and authorities to regulate
cruise ships:
o $748,300 funded by cruise industry through non-Ocean
Ranger fees.
o Four department staff positions:
square4 Register cruise ships and review submittals:
• Example: best management plans for small
cruise ships and vessel specific sampling
plan.
• Issue wastewater discharge authorizations
under larger cruise ship general permit.
• Conduct inspections, issue notices of
violations, and with Law initiate
enforcement actions and fines.
o Additional opacity monitoring conducted by contractors
in multiple port cities to distinguish what is steam
and what exceeds DEC's air quality standards.
MR. SAYERS-FAY reiterated that the Ocean Ranger program was
identified as non-essential primarily due to its cost versus
outcome. The $3.8 million per year in Ocean Ranger fees is 3
times the cost of the department's overall wastewater program
permitted through the Division of Water.
He specified that DEC is addressing the Ocean Ranger program and
not the department's cruise ship program. There are other funds
from cruise ships that are collected, and other DEC staff
members dedicated for inspecting and looking at cruise ship
issues regarding compliance.
He emphasized that there is no other permitted industry in
Alaska that has 24/7 onsite observers. Most industries have some
combination of self-monitoring, reporting the results to the
agency, or keeping copies of records to show documented evidence
for inspections that shows training, sample collection, and
results received. Facilities authorized to discharge under the
Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System are visited at
least once over a range of two to five years. There is a very
large difference between the frequency of coverage with Ocean
Rangers onboard cruise ships where 65 percent of the voyages are
covered in Alaskan waters where a Ranger is onboard for some
portion of a sailing.
3:40:10 PM
He summarized that separate from the Ocean Ranger program,
$750,000 in fees is collected annually to run the Division of
Water's cruise ship program.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the department hires a contractor for
opacity monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered yes, separate from the Ocean Ranger
program.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the department still does opacity
testing for asphalt plant operators.
MR. SAYERS-FAY replied that Division of Air monitors asphalt
plants. Cruise ship monitoring is centralized under the Division
of Water to cover both air and water issues.
SENATOR BISHOP explained that the reason for his question
related to asphalt operations is his recollection that plant
operators could annually receive their opacity testing
certification so that smoke could be self-monitored. He asked if
self-monitoring was still allowed.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that he cannot directly address Senator
Bishop's question regarding all the ways to receive
certification. The Division of Water has annual training for its
staff and contractors used for opacity monitoring.
3:43:45 PM
He addressed "Outcomes for the Ocean Ranger program's $3.8
million per year cost" as follows:
• Potential non-compliance identified by Ocean Rangers may
not reflect actual non-compliance:
o There may not be enough information to make the
determination;
o It may be under federal or other agency jurisdiction;
o The issue is resolved quickly such that a
determination is no longer needed.
• Ocean Rangers look for potential non-compliance with state
and federal authorities pertaining to marine discharge and
pollution requirements and to insure that passengers, crew,
and residents at ports are protected from improper
sanitation, health, and safety practices.
• Most issues identified by Ocean Rangers on daily reports
turn out not to be formal violations:
o Ocean Rangers are not the experts on what constitutes
non-compliance over the vast array of state and
federal statutes and regulations.
• Six notices of violation (NOV) over 11 years attributable
to Ocean Ranger observations:
o 238 NOVs over the same period attributable to
permittee self-reporting, staff inspections and
review, and opacity monitoring by contractors.
o All NOVs supported by other evidence supplied by
vessel operators.
o NOVs may include more than one violation.
He reiterated that the department looked at what the state
receives in return for the annual $3.8 million investment in the
Ocean Ranger program. DEC typically reports through OMB the
number of potential compliance issues that Ocean Rangers
identify via their broad authority. DEC looked more thoroughly
as to how many issues identified by the Ocean Rangers actually
end up becoming a NOV.
MR. SAYERS-FAY emphasized that Ocean Rangers are not experts in
all inspection areas. Ocean Rangers look at bilge water; fuel
handling practices; air emissions; wastewater discharges that
includes sewage, graywater; and pools or spas who accidently
discharge chlorinated water overboard. Ocean Rangers also look
at food preparation practices, hazardous materials including
batteries moved on and off a ship. Ocean Rangers are looking at
solid waste which is a very broad area. Ocean Rangers identify
many things that look to them like issues, but DEC staff must
follow up on their observations to determine if a NOV has been
observed.
3:46:21 PM
He addressed the large cruise ship NOVs table.
• Large cruise ship annual notices of violation from 2008 to
2018:
o Wastewater:
square4 Average: 16.8,
square4 Minimum: 8,
square4 Maximum: 33,
square4 Total: 185.
o Air opacity:
square4 Average: 4.7,
square4 Minimum: 0,
square4 Maximum: 11,
square4 Total: 52.
o Other:
square4 Average: 0.1,
square4 Minimum: 0,
square4 Maximum: 1,
square4 Total: 1.
o Ocean Ranger attributable:
square4 Average: 0.55,
square4 Minimum: 0,
square4 Maximum: 2,
square4 Total: 6.
o Total: 244.
He disclosed that over the 11 years of the program, DEC
identified 6 NOVs that are directly attributable to observations
made by Ocean Rangers, the remaining 238 NOVs issued by the
department over the same period either have to do with staff
inspections responding to complaints, doing periodic opacity
monitoring, or following up on observations that were initially
made by contractors doing opacity monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY noted that the wastewater field for large cruise
ships exhibits more NOVs because the permit has more explicit
requirements and it is easy to identify whether a vessel
complies or not, plus the vessel has self-monitoring
requirements that must be reported to the department.
SENATOR KAWASAKI addressed Mr. Sayers-Fay's overview that talks
about potential non-compliance with state and federal
authorities. He asked if the department would be able to assume
the Ocean Ranger role regarding federal regulations.
MR. SAYERS-FAY explained that DEC is trying to show that most
NOVs do not come from the Ocean Rangers. If DEC maintains what
the division's cruise ship staff currently does without any
changes, the expectation is for a similar level of possible NOV
observations. Discontinuation of the Ranger program would allow
a staff member to do additional onboard inspections rather than
reviewing reports by Ocean Rangers.
3:48:13 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the same amount of time could be freed up
by computerizing reports.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that the program is reviewed every year
and the intent over time has been to make things as electronic
as possible in terms of the forms Ocean Rangers fill out and how
the reports are e-mailed to the department. DEC does not have a
system that is completely automated, but the department is in
the process of moving in that direction.
He addressed "Bill background" for SB 70 as follows:
• Would repeal Ocean Ranger program (AS 46.03.476).
• Would repeal the $4/lower berth fee which is separately
paid below the line directly by the passenger, not the
cruise agency (AS 46.03.480(d)).
• Originally created by ballot initiative in 2006, which
included other regulatory changes which are not affected by
SB 70.
• Program not required by state constitution or federal law.
• Program conducted by out-of-state contractor primarily with
non-Alaskan employees.
• Reduction of $3,846,800 of Ocean Ranger fee receipts.
MR. SAYERS-FAY specified that due to the number of voyages and
the number of large cruise ships that visit Alaska, having an
Ocean Ranger on a ship at all times is difficult. Every ship is
covered at some point when the vessel is in Alaska,
approximately 65 percent of the voyages are covered.
He noted that passengers directly pay fees that includes the $4
charge for the Ocean Ranger program. The Port of Seattle charges
approximately $16 per passenger when the individual boards and
disembarks, approximately $33 in total charges. Passengers fees
add up, total per-person fees for a typical cruise to Alaska can
add up to approximately $150 is passenger fees.
He reiterated that the Ocean Ranger program was part of a ballot
initiative and funding for the program is separate from other
aspects of the initiative which created the head tax that is
separate from the Ocean Ranger fee. Changes were made to DEC's
statutorial authority that SB 70 does not roll back. DEC was
granted some additional authority in terms of data collection in
dealing with cruise ships, none of that has changed, the only
portion of the program that SB 70 addresses is not having the
Ocean Rangers and repealing the fee for the program.
3:51:09 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked if AS 46.03.480(d) repeals only the fee
that goes to the Ocean Ranger program and the fee does not pay
for any other aspect of taxes that the cruise ship passengers
pay or other monitoring functions.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that AS 46.03.480 covers the entire set
of fees that DEC receives. A separate fee that will be
unaffected is called the Commercial Passenger Vessel
Environmental Compliance fee that is covered in AS 46.03.480(a)
through AS 46.03.480(c) and AS 46.03.480(e). The Commercial
Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance fee is the additional
funding that DEC uses for monitoring cruise ships that is
separate from the Ocean Rangers program.
He summarized that the Ocean Ranger program is not required by
the Alaska Constitution or federal law, it is conducted by a
contractor that is paid approximately $3.8 million per year, and
the Ocean Rangers are primarily out-of-state marine licensed
engineers.
MR. SAYERS-FAY addressed "Department Authorities Remaining after
SB 70" as follows:
• AS 46.03.710 Pollution Prohibited: a person may not pollute
or add to the pollution of the air, land, subsurface land,
or water of the state.
• AS 46.03.020 Powers of the Department: DEC may at
reasonable times, enter and inspect with the consent of the
owner or occupier any property or premises to investigate
either actual or suspected sources of pollution or
contamination or to ascertain compliance or noncompliance
with a regulation.
• Authorities for Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental
Compliance Program (AS 46.03.460 475 and AS 46.03.480
488).
• Authorities for pollution standards, waste and wastewater
discharge management (AS 46.03.070 - 120).
• Authorities for civil and criminal inspection, enforcement,
and liability (AS 46.03.760 - 890).
• Authorities for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and
response (AS 46.03.740 - 865; AS 46.04; AS 46.08; AS
46.09).
• Authorities for air quality (AS 46.14.010 - 030).
3:54:52 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI addressed AS 46.03.020 regarding the "Powers of
the Department" and asked him to specify what Ocean Rangers do
when they are onboard. He inquired if Ocean Rangers do more in
regulation than what is stated in the statute that the
department can do.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that the main difference is that staff
members are credentialed inspectors and enforcement officers of
the department and they go through a training program to obtain
their credentials. When staff members are onboard in contrast to
an Ocean Ranger, the difference is training, and it is a
difference being able to be called into court to backup a NOV
that is contested.
SENATOR KAWASAKI said he expected that DEC staff members do
their inspections while a vessel is in port. He asked what
happens when a vessel is between ports, would a DEC staff member
be onboard as an Ocean Ranger would.
MR. SAYERS-FAY specified that staff members are not riding on
the cruise ships between ports, inspections are done onshore
when the vessel is docked. DEC does not have the same coverage
as an Ocean Ranger. When an Ocean Ranger is onboard, they have a
certain amount of time for paperwork, mandatory requirements,
and inspections. There is a difference in coverage between ports
and in terms of the amount of time spent.
3:56:56 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked him to confirm that Ocean Rangers are
monitoring vessels while in port and at sea where ending the
program will result in not having someone permanently onboard
between ports.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered correct. He explained that the result
would be the cruise ships are regulated like all other
industries where DEC does not have 24/7 presence.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if his earlier statement that coverage with
Ocean Rangers at any one time is 65 percent.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered yes. He explained that there are
approximately 34-large cruise ships in any given year that are
sailing in Alaskan waters. Every cruise ship making their
multiple trips will have an Ocean Ranger onboard multiple times
during a cruise ship season, but of the number of trips that a
given vessel takes, approximately 18 to 20, an Ocean Ranger is
onboard 65 percent of the sailings.
SENATOR BISHOP asked him to confirm that coverage is not 100-
percent right now.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered correct. He specified that 24/7 coverage
means when an Ocean Ranger is present.
3:58:57 PM
SENATOR KIEHL referenced his statement about enforceability and
asked if he said that an Ocean Ranger who spots a violation at
sea does not have the authority to issue a notice of violation
(NOV).
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that an Ocean Ranger cannot submit a
report that automatically turns into a NOV. A DEC staff member
must become involved where the report is reviewed, an Ocean
Ranger is questioned if necessary, additional information is
gathered from the cruise ship, and based on the information
gathered the DEC staff member determines whether to write up a
NOV.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if an Ocean Ranger not having authority is
effective.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that an Ocean Ranger would have to be
deputized to confer departmental authority to be more effective.
The reason for the bill is because the Ocean Ranger program is
not an effective way to regulate due to the cost and excess
coverage that no other industry faces. There is an appropriate
deterrence and regulation of other industries without the level
of Ocean Ranger involvement with cruise ships.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if contractors do opacity monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered correct.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if the same issue applies to the contractors
for opacity monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY explained that opacity readers go through the
same training the DEC staff does to be able to properly read
opacity using EPA Method 9 requirements. Opacity readers are
providing readings of interest where the information is double
checked by a DEC staff member before consideration is given for
a formal violation. Due to opacity readers being trained with
DEC staff, the department is more comfortable working with the
opacity readers.
4:01:54 PM
He addressed "Significance of remaining authorities" if SB 70
passed as follows:
• Department staff have authority to conduct inspections at
reasonable times:
o Staff can obtain a warrant to inspect if denied
reasonable access.
• No change in the standard of what is legal or illegal.
• No change in enforcement or emergency authority because
those are primarily activities of the department.
• Does not change the large cruise ship wastewater discharge
general permit.
• Does not change the small cruise ship and ferry best
management plan requirements.
• Does not change sampling or reporting requirements.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that Commissioner Brune spent significant
time on the difference in discharge standards for fixed-point
discharges versus cruise ship standards. He asked if his
argument was against mixing zones.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE explained that he brought up the comparison
to show the disparity of the requirements for the cruise ship
industry versus the host-port communities. He admitted that the
relevance to SB 70 is probably inappropriate.
4:03:51 PM
SENATOR COGHILL recalled when the Ocean Rangers were put in that
the cruise ships were in the process of upgrading their
wastewater treatment systems.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered correct. He explained that in 2001 there
was a federal bill that changed the wastewater requirements for
the cruise ships, and the requirements were phased in. He said
his understanding is that all of ships now operating in Alaska
that are discharging are using advanced wastewater treatment
systems. There are some ships that have the holding capacity
that they do not discharge in Alaskan waters because if they
did, they would have to follow DEC's requirements.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if the cruise ships can do high-seas
mixing.
MR. SAYERS-FAY asked if he meant mixing or discharge
SENATOR COGHILL replied discharge outside of Alaska waters.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered yes. He explained that all the ships
that DEC regulates under the state's authority is within three-
nautical miles from shore. The previously noted federal bill has
specific language that covers donut holes in the Alexander
Archipelago in Southeast Alaska where a vessel can be more than
three miles from shore but still be in Alaskan waters. Permit
coverage applies within the entire Alexander Archipelago and
three-nautical miles from shore.
4:05:33 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked how many ships venture outside of the
Alexander Archipelago.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that a lot of ships start out of Seattle
or Vancouver, so a portion of their travel is outside of Alaskan
waters. The vast majority of the ships are operating such that
once they enter Alaskan waters, they stay in Alaskan waters
until they leave.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the DEC website reported cruise ship
findings or discoveries that involved 74 oil pollution
incidences in 2018 and 87 in 2017 in addition to 19 wastewater
incidences in 2018 and 22 in 2017. He asked how many of the
incidents that Ocean Rangers find reach the level of a
violation.
4:07:01 PM
MR. SAYERS-FAY explained that Senator Kawasaki was referring to
DEC's report to OMB that showed different things that Ocean
Rangers found potential non-compliance for safety, petroleum,
air quality, and water quality. He said that over the life of
the Ocean Ranger program, there have only been six NOVs that
have been directly attributable to the Ocean Rangers. The 6 NOVs
by the Ocean Rangers may have involved an oil sheen, off-loading
wastewater where there may have been a spill, a sampling plan
that was not followed, or an unauthorized discharge; those are
some of the items in the 6 NOVs that were identified over the 11
years from 2008 through 2018.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how many times incidences are reported by
Ocean Rangers and DEC follows up and identifies at the next
port.
MR. SAYERS-FAY said he asked the program manager for the cruise
ship program explained that NOVs are attributable to the Ocean
Rangers when it is their report that initiates DEC's
investigation. Reports of potential violations could also come
from DEC staff, an opacity contractor, or the cruise ship self-
reporting an incident.
4:09:27 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how an NOV inspection happens when a DEC
staff member is involved.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that if an Ocean Ranger initiates an
activity and whatever follow up results in a NOV, that would
become one of the six notices of violations that are
attributable to Ocean Rangers. Because of the nature of a NOV
and because that is the formal enforcement step, there is never
a situation where only based on the Ocean Ranger report does it
go automatically to a NOV, there is always DEC staff
involvement.
SENATOR KIEHL asked if DEC staff follows up on Ocean Ranger
reports 100 percent of the time or are adjustments made due to
DEC's workload issues.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that by the end of the season or shortly
thereafter, the coverage rate is 100 percent; however, when the
reports come in the DEC staff will response first to the reports
that are most egregious.
4:11:42 PM
He addressed "Transition and timing" if SB 70 passed as follows:
• Ocean Rangers will operate during Summer 2019 under FY2019
budget authority and fee receipts.
• Governor has proposed HB74/SB70 to repeal the Ocean Ranger
program and associated fees.
• If Ocean Ranger budget authority is eliminated but
statutory program is not repealed, then the Department:
o Would be required to collect the $4/berth fee in
Summer 2020;
o But, would not have the budget authority to implement
the program during that season.
SENATOR KIEHL noted the fiscal notes and pointed out that three
notes reflected a fund change if SB 70 passes. He said $421,000
would come out of the Cruise and Environmental Compliance
account. He asked if the fund is $421,000 a year in surplus and
if so, what is being done with the built-up money.
4:14:36 PM
JEFF ROGERS, Director, Administrative Services, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska,
replied that Senator Kiehl is correct to some degree. He
specified that the department has not had in the Cruise Ship
program in the Division of Water the amount of legislative
authorization to spend what the department has in revenue. DEC's
revenue numbers in recent years have varied, but the amount
hovers in the range of $3.5 million-plus. There are some timing
issues because the revenue spans the department's fiscal year.
The department estimates that in the current year and the
following year that the department will receive more than $5
million in Ocean Ranger receipts, a progression that naturally
follows the increase in cruise ship passengers. He noted that
the legislature decided two years ago to fund the Fish Tissue
Monitoring program at the Environmental Health lab with receipts
from the Ocean Ranger program. He added that a couple of hundred
thousand dollars supports the Ocean Rangers' administrative
costs as well. He summarized that DEC spends funds that were
appropriated to the department by the legislature on something
other than the Ocean Ranger program.
4:16:18 PM
SENATOR KIEHL specified that his question was related to the
replacement fund source.
MR. ROGERS explained that the $420,800 that is currently funded
by the Ocean Rangers' receipts will be sufficiently covered by
the Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance fees.
He added that the Fish Tissue Monitoring program will be funded
by the same fees.
CHAIR BIRCH asked if technological changes have occurred that
can improve program monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered yes. He said there has been a change in
technology that provides opportunities to consider in adding
functionality to monitoring where reporting can be automatic or
downloaded to provide a greater breadth of information.
4:18:17 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI inquired if current statutory law allows DEC to
do remote monitoring.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that DEC's authority to do so would be
the department's overall objective of properly monitoring but
cost and purpose for the regulated community must be considered.
SENATOR KIEHL asked who would cover the cost for advanced
monitoring systems if the fee is repealed, the passenger or ship
owner.
MR. SAYERS-FAY answered that funds from the Commercial Passenger
Vessel Environmental Compliance fees would be used.
SENATOR KIEHL noted that Mr. Rogers had said the fund from the
Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance fees would
have to be watched very carefully for sustainability.
4:20:46 PM
CHAIR BIRCH opened public testimony.
4:21:17 PM
JOESPH W. GELDHOF, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 70. He opined that the $4 passenger fee for
the Ocean Ranger program came about because the cruise ship
industry earned the scrutiny. He suggested that the bill be
reconfigured in a manner that works and makes sense both for the
industry and the citizens of Alaska. He noted that the idea of
putting an onboard observer on cruise ships was originated from
discussions with the fishing community who are used to having
onboard observers in the federal fisheries.
4:25:02 PM
ROBB ARNOLD, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He said his biggest concern was related to
several incidences that occurred near Ketchikan in 2018 where
excessive fecal levels in the water were reported. He said the
Ocean Ranger program is a small price to pay for independent
monitoring and there is no cost to the state. He added that he
is concerned that four permits were issued for discharging at
the dock. He said no where in the world is discharging at docks
allowed. He opined that more instate Ocean Rangers be hired to
allow for additional monitoring.
4:27:23 PM
LYNDA GIGURE, representing self, Douglas, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. She said to throw the Ocean Ranger program
out does not make sense. She opined that fewer NOVs reported by
Ocean Rangers means the program is working.
4:28:45 PM
HEATHER EVOY, Indigenous Engagement Lead, Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council, Juneau, Alaska, testified in opposition of
SB 70. She stated that cutting the Ocean Ranger program has no
benefit and only does harm to the safety, health, and wellbeing
of Alaskan residents, ecosystems, and economy. The Ocean Ranger
program is an effective monitoring and enforcement mechanism in
Alaska to ensure cruise ships are not damaging Alaskan
waterways. There is no financial cost to the state, but the
program provides a much-needed protective service.
4:31:46 PM
ERIC CLOCK, Ocean Ranger, Seward, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He opined that Ocean Rangers onboard cruise
ships provide valuable oversight to the cruise industry, DEC,
and the U.S. Coast Guard. Ocean Rangers provide reassurance to
Alaskans who drafted and voted on the initiative in 2006
creating the program. The Ocean Ranger program is covered by the
$4-per-cruise-ship-passenger fee and does not affect Alaska's
budget. He noted the importance of having an independent monitor
onboard cruise ships.
4:35:07 PM
NANCY BERG, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. She noted that the Petersburg fishing
fleet's most frequent comment on tourism is the importance of
having clean air and water for commercial fishing activities.
She pointed out that cruise ship passenger counts continue to
grow and having a beautiful environment in Alaska is an asset to
the cruise ship industry. She pointed out that the cruise ship
industry has not asked for the Ocean Ranger program to be
repealed.
4:36:50 PM
RONN BUSCHMANN, representing self, Petersburg, Alaska, testified
in opposition of SB 70. He said the state should not overlook
the deterrent effect of Ocean Rangers, especially with the
increase in Alaska cruise ship travel and noted violations in
the past.
4:38:30 PM
JEFF HOKKANEN, Ocean Ranger, Homer, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He opined that the Ocean Ranger program has
been successful at doing what the citizens of Alaska wanted with
the ballot measure passed in 2006. Ocean Rangers have been able
to supply DEC with information that could be obtained by having
Ocean Rangers onboard cruise ships versus shore-based
monitoring.
4:40:56 PM
DANIEL LYNCH, representing self, Soldotna, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He emphasized that the ballot initiative
that passed for the Ocean Ranger program is the people's intent.
4:41:43 PM
TIM NELICK, Ocean Ranger, Galveston, Texas, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He noted that any Ocean Ranger interaction
with cruise ship passengers is typically met with substantial
gratitude and appreciation to preserve the Alaska cruising
environment. Alaska tourism is eco-tourism.
4:43:55 PM
GERSHON COHEN, representing self, Haines, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He disclosed that he was one of the authors
of the ballot measure in 2006 that created the Ocean Ranger
program. He emphasized that the cruise ship industry has earned
its scrutiny due to wastewater violations. He opined that
violations outside of Alaska are due to not having independent
monitors onboard. He said the Ocean Ranger program should not be
repealed especially when independent monitoring is so clearly
needed, especially when the program is paid for by passengers
and not Alaskans.
4:46:21 PM
CHRIS SCHNEIDER, Ocean Ranger, Seward, Alaska, testified in
opposition of SB 70. He noted the importance of monitoring
because a ship is not stationary versus a wastewater treatment
facility. He opined that the six noted NOVs reported by Ocean
Rangers shows that the program is effective.
4:48:45 PM
CHAIR BIRCH closed public testimony.
4:48:54 PM
CHAIR BIRCH held SB 70 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB70 DEC SRES Presentation 3.13.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Fiscal Note DEC-ENVH 2.19.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Fiscal Note DEC-SSS 2.19.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Fiscal Note DEC-VASV 2.19.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Fiscal Note DEC-WIF 2.19.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Transmittal Letter 2.21.19.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |
| SB70 Version A.PDF |
SRES 3/13/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 70 |