Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/14/2022 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 | |
| SB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SB 180-PASSENGER VESSEL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
3:35:22 PM
CHAIR REVAK announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to commercial passenger vessel environmental
compliance; relating to commercial passenger vessel fees;
establishing the wastewater infrastructure grant fund; repealing
the authority for citizens' suits relating to commercial
passenger vessel environmental compliance; repealing the
commercial passenger vessel recognition program; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing and the intention was to hear the
introduction, take testimony, and hold the bill in committee to
allow members time to review it and prepare questions.
3:36:15 PM
EMMA POKON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Anchorage, Alaska, presented SB 180 on behalf of
the administration. She stated that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) participated in a couple of
hearings before COVID disrupted the legislative session a few
years prior. As the original drafter of an earlier bill, she was
pleased to present SB 180, DEC's vision for the future
regulatory program of cruise ships. COVID was difficult for the
industry and port communities. The department took advantage of
the downtime to evaluate the program, talk to communities and
stakeholders, perform extra water quality research, and think
through details.
MS. POKON explained that DEC regulates many industries that
discharge water. It regulates resource extraction, seafood
processors, municipal wastewater treatment facilities, housing
construction, and commercial passenger vessels. DEC takes this
work seriously and expects the industries it regulates to make
protecting the environment a primary goal in their operations.
MS. POKON said that SB 180 proposes to amend statutes
implemented as a result of the 2006 ballot initiative relating
to the cruise ship industry. Alaskans sent a clear message to
take the environmental initiative seriously. The department
intends to set up a robust regulatory program. The aim of SB 180
is to better protect water quality, human health, and the
environment and to do it in a way that optimizes the use of
available funds.
3:39:08 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Juneau, Alaska, presented a
slideshow titled SB 180, Commercial Passenger Vessel
Environmental Compliance. He advanced to slide 2, Operating
Expectations:
• All Industries operating in Alaska are subject to
discharge requirements
• Oil and gas
• Hard rock and placer mining
• Seafood processing
• Publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
• Timber operations
• Housing and industrial developments
• Commercial passenger vessels
• DEC takes protection of Alaska's environment
seriously, and we expect all industries and
operating facilities to engage and perform
meaningfully in that protection
MR. BATES said DEC takes protecting human health and the
environment seriously. The department expects industry,
operator, and facility compliance with all rules and discharge
requirements.
MR. BATES advanced to slide 3, 2021 Cruise Ship Oversight to
explain what the department has done over the past couple of
years:
• DEC led on-board inspections of small and large
discharging vessels operating in Alaska
He said that currently one full-time marine engineer is on
staff. Staff dedicated to the oversight of the cruise passenger
vessel compliance program include one environmental program
specialist and two part-time environmental program specialists.
The division intends to recruit one marine engineer, and one
program specialist within the next few months to round out
staffing for a good, robust group to carry out all the planned
vessel visits this summer.
• Respectful of COVID-19 protocols and safety
measures
• Inspections scheduled and unscheduled, in-port
and underway
• Vessel sampling results
• Port and common corridor transit area water quality
sampling
3:40:28 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked whether any cruise ships visited Alaska
in 2020.
MR. BATES answered that no cruise ships visited Alaska in 2020.
In 2021, 21 cruise vessels visited the state; there were 13
small vessels and eight large vessels. The distinguishing
characteristic between large and small vessels is the number of
berths onboard. Small vessels have between 50 and 249 berths and
large vessels have 250 or more berths. This distinguishing
characteristic, based on passenger capacity, determines how the
division manages the vessel.
SENATOR VON IMHOF recalled that the division continued to obtain
ocean water samples even though passenger vessels had cancelled
sailings to Alaska due to COVID. She questioned why water
samples continued to be collected in the absence of cruise ship
activity and what the division discovered from its research.
MR. BATES prefaced his answer, reiterating that no cruise ships
sailed to Alaska in 2020 and only a limited cruise ship season
occurred late in 2021. The division continued to collect water
samples, because the absence of cruise ship activity afforded a
unique opportunity to establish baseline data in port
communities and common corridor areas that typically see cruise
ship traffic and water discharge. From its research, the
division discovered high bacteria levels in ports, even in the
absence of cruise ships. The division found no exceedances in
the common corridor areas. The division plans to continue water
quality sampling as the cruise ship industry returns to upward
of 60 vessels in 2022. The division will sample the same areas
that were tested in previous years to determine whether either
large or small cruise ships have affected water quality, and
manage the problem accordingly.
3:42:59 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF sought confirmation that high bacterial levels
detected in water samples collected in 2020 resulted from normal
daily discharge from cities and towns in port communities.
MR. BATES answered that is correct.
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked if it was correct to infer that the high
bacteria levels were not solely due to discharge by cruise
ships.
MR. BATES replied the division asked itself this same question.
Some of the division's work involves targeting and evaluating
exceedances. The division has DNA markers to identify bacteria,
whether it be dogs, humans or other. He reiterated that the
division took advantage of the opportunity to bolster its
sampling plan and collected data while the cruise vessels were
gone in 2020. The division learned that in the absence of cruise
ships, the port communities, particularly around boat harbors
where there are fishing fleets or liveaboards, showed a higher
incidence of human-traced bacterial concentrations.
SENATOR VON IMHOF commented she would like the findings depicted
in a bar graph, comparing data with and without the presence of
cruise ships, the year, and the collection site. She asked how
many years the division had been collecting water samples.
MR. BATES answered that an improved sampling program was
developed and implemented when the department received an
infusion of funding in 2020. The pre-2020 sampling program is
not necessarily comparable to the current program; however, the
division does have port sampling protocols dating back several
years prior to 2020. This data will be used to produce a bar
graph illustrating the findings.
3:45:41 PM
SENATOR REVAK requested that the data be sent to the committee.
MS. POKON commented that the division sees seasonal discharge
variations with heavier use of town and community facilities.
The increased burden of passenger foot traffic on community
wastewater treatment facilities is a factor that affects water
quality not necessarily just discharge from the cruise vessels
themselves.
CHAIR REVAK commented that he looked forward to seeing the data.
3:46:30 PM
MR. BATES provided information about the department's 2021
oversight. He reiterated that the equivalent of three staff, one
marine engineer and two program managers, implemented DEC lead
inspections on 13 small vessels and 8 large vessels. The
inspections were a first and the division was excited about the
opportunity conduct them. The division was pleased to report
large vessels and the Alaska Marine Highway System ferries were
given a clean bill of health and did not incur any discharge
violations this past season. However, the division found ample
opportunity to critique the environmental performance of small
vessels. The division worked with small vessel operators and
owners, articulating the state's expectations on discharge
numbers, environmental protocols, and practices. The division
conducted follow-up meetings throughout the summer. Small vessel
operators reviewed their systems and made improvements and
corrections. The division has conveyed the state's environmental
performance expectations to small vessels for the upcoming 2022
season.
3:48:02 PM
MR. BATES said the hottest news for 2022 is that twenty-four
large vessels are registered to cruise the state of Alaska.
Right now, large and small fleets are prepping to come to
Alaska, figuring out their registration protocols and packages.
The state is expecting packed ships. The department will know
more March 1 which is the registration system deadline. The
department will continue its preseason work through the winter
and spring.
MR. BATES advanced to slide 4, 2022 Season and Beyond:
• DEC marine engineers and inspectors will
• perform initial and annual inspections on ships
operating in Alaska as early in the season as
possible
MR. BATES said that the division anticipates getting aboard
vessels operating in Alaska the first couple of weeks of the
season.
• will perform both scheduled and unscheduled
inspections in-port and while vessel is
underway
MR. BATES said that the majority of inspections will be done in
port. The division will determine whether follow-up vessel
visits are necessary and schedule them accordingly. Some follow-
up visits will be conducted while the vessel is underway, going
port to port. Division staff will be onboard watching how
discharge activities occur, typically waste water discharge
activities are done in the evening.
• Small vessels will be subject to the same inspection
requirements
MR. BATES said that small vessels receive the same level of
inspection as large vessels. This has not necessarily been the
case in the past.
3:49:59 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 5, Existing Challenges:
• Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance
Program statutes were passed in 2001
MR. BATES gave a brief overview of the history of commercial
passenger vessel (CPV) statutes. DEC had the ability to regulate
and oversee CPVs since the department's inception in 1971.
Specific CPV statutes were passed in 2001 and amended in 2003.
Statutes were further amended in 2006 with the passage of Ballot
Measure 2 and the implementation of the Ocean Ranger Program.
Clearly, the message was that Alaskans wanted DEC to improve
environmental compliance oversight for CPVs.
MR. BATES reported that DEC has improved its oversight over time
through ongoing compliance evaluations. The department has
gained a significant amount of experience and knowledge about
what works, what is effective, whether there are gaps in
coverage, and what could be improved in the most cost-effective
manner.
• Statutes require outdated, inefficient reporting
methods
• Statute-based standards are difficult to change
when waste treatment and monitoring technologies
improve
MR. BATES laid out some of the existing challenges, stating
current statutes collectively contain outdated information and
inefficient reporting methods. CPV statutes are difficult to
adjust and adapt to treatment and monitoring programs as they
are improved.
• 2006 ballot initiative put ocean ranger observers on
large vessels
• DEC staff spent significant time going through
ocean ranger reports
• Ocean ranger observations produced 6 notices of
violation over 12 years
• Small vessels did not get the same attention as
large vessels
MR. BATES said that Ocean Rangers were observers and provided
reports. DEC staff spent quite a bit of time reviewing those
reports in office, not on the ships.
• Water quality in port communities is impacted by
cruise passengers using onshore facilities
MR. BATES said that for several years fleet and passenger loads
have increased in Alaska and DEC hears numbers are on the rise.
A majority of passengers and crew disembark in port, visit
shops, shoreside attractions and create an economy. However,
they also leave waste that communities must collect and treat.
Port communities are impacted and could likely use some
assistance to upgrade treatment facilities to improve wastewater
discharge, and most importantly water quality effluent.
3:52:38 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether significant or modified changes
have occurred since the 2006 ballot initiative passed on the
commercial passenger environmental compliance program.
MR. BATES answered that, to the best of his knowledge, a
statutory revision had not occurred since 2006.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether any noteworthy regulatory changes
had been made.
MR. BATES answered that he was not aware of any regulatory
changes, particularly substantive changes that addressed CPV
groups.
3:53:26 PM
SENATOR KIEHL recalled that work had been done on pipe
standards, especially as they pertained to metals, and the level
of plan small vessels were required to submit. He made a special
request of the director to look back a little bit and provide
the committee with additional research.
CHAIR REVAK asked whether clarification on the question was
needed.
MR. BATES understood the request to be specific to regulations
pertaining to CPVs. The state has a chapter of regulations that
apply to CPVs. The state also has chapters of water quality
regulations that all industries are subject to, whether it is
the cruise industry, the mining industry, or a publicly owned
treatment facility.
3:54:48 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI recalled that effluent quality changes came out
in 2008/2009, so he would like to have both.
MR. BATES answered that he would provide that analysis.
3:55:16 PM
MR. BATES moved on to slide 6, Proposed Changes.
• Move detailed statutes to regulation
MR. BATES said this bill simplifies statutory directives, so the
department has greater flexibility to set specific standards by
regulation. DEC plans to lift a number of sections that are
currently embedded in the statutes and move them into
regulation. This will give the department more flexibility and
adaptability to manage an industry where technology changes
quicker than statutory programs. It will also strengthen and
clarify DEC's authority to board and inspect CPVs in Alaska.
• Clarify DEC authority to board vessels while in
port and underway
• Allow DEC to set format requirements for reports
from vessels
MR. BATES said this bill will capture some of the statutory
cleanups and clarifying edits DEC learned were necessary,
through administering the compliance program, to ensure
compliance with environmental laws.
• Simplify fee structure
MR. BATES said that one major component this bill proposes is to
replace the complex matrix of multiple fees with a single $5 per
lower berth fee for each voyage for all CPVs, small or large.
• Incorporate technology
MR. BATES said that this bill proposes to incorporate technology
through the development of electronic, real-time discharge
monitoring, and timely, formatted reporting will allow DEC to
spot and respond to areas of concern more quickly.
• Repeal ocean ranger observers
• Establish grant program to assist port
municipalities to upgrade wastewater treatment
facilities serving vessel passengers
MR. BATES said that this bill establishes a program to help
finance wastewater infrastructure improvements for port
communities serving CPVs and their passengers.
MR. BATES said SB 180 has a zero fiscal note with a slight
revenue increase associated with the application of berth fees
specific to the small vessels. The slight revenue increase would
be about $100,000, $80,000 of which comes from small CPVs. A
delayed effective date of 2024 was built in, so small vessels
could minimize the financial impact of the change.
3:58:12 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 7, What Will Not Change:
• DEC's authority to conduct inspections at reasonable
times and ability to get a warrant if necessary
MR. BATES stated that DEC absolutely retains authority to
conduct onboard inspections.
• DEC's vessel registration system, which is required
for all passenger vessels with over 50 overnight
berths
MR. BATES said that the registration system used by vessels,
which notifies the state of intent to travel to Alaska, the
number of voyages planned, and the number of passengers onboard,
will not change.
• Air emission monitoring program
• The large cruise ship wastewater discharge general
permit
MR. BATES stated the large CPV general permit is still in effect
and vessels are required to obtain this permit to discharge in
Alaska waters.
• Separate discharge requirements for small vessels
• Sampling and reporting requirements
MR. BATES said that sampling and reporting requirements will not
change. Vessels are required to collect samples within 10 days
of arrival in Alaska. DEC looks at the samples and reviews the
results with vessels.
• What may not be discharged to Alaska's environment
MR. BATES said that vessels cannot discharge wastewater without
a permit and without treatment; what can and cannot be
discharged will not change.
• Recognition program
MR. BATES said that the recognition program currently in statute
remains in effect, so outstanding companies and individuals may
be honored and acknowledged by the commissioner. The
commissioner acknowledged Princess Cruises earlier this year on
th
the 20 anniversary of shore power. In conjunction with the City
and Borough of Juneau, Princess Cruises developed shore power
hookup which reduced vessel dependency on generators, reduced
air emissions and was overall a very good product.
4:00:18 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.
4:00:28 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI directed attention to Section 3 where the word
"wastewater" is substituted for "sewage, graywater, or other
wastewaters." He asked whether there is a difference between the
terms and if "wastewater" encompasses all discharged water.
MR. BATES answered yes, this bill changes and clarifies
terminology. It proposes to use the term "wastewater throughout
existing statute to define all the effluents for which the
department is concerned. Wastewater would be the term used to
define graywater, blackwater and other wastewater.
4:01:31 PM
MS. POKON added that Section 16 adds a definition for wastewater
that captures graywater and sewage, so terminology is consistent
throughout the section.
4:01:50 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked whether the Ocean Ranger Program has been
successful and to elaborate on why or why not. He asked the
department's position on the program.
MR. BATES answered the Ocean Ranger Program was put in place by
a ballot initiative in 2006. The vote indicated that Alaskans
wanted greater ardor in the examination and management of
effluent discharged from ships. The Ocean Ranger Program went
into effect in 2006 and included only large CPVs, not small
CPVs. Ocean rangers observed activities on vessels and followed
a chart of duties on a daily basis. The state paid for berth
space on vessels for ocean ranger lodging which totaled $3.5
million per year. Ocean rangers provided oversight, not
inspection or enforcement. Ocean rangers provided DEC with
reports of what was observed onboard. The department reviewed
the reports and acted immediately to enforce laws if anything
was of concern. Ocean rangers did not have the authority to
enforce laws, but they served an important service at a critical
time. DEC evaluated the $3.5 million per year Ocean Ranger
Program. Over the past 12 years, the cost totaled over $40
million. The department considered whether the program continued
to provide a meaningful, cost-effective service that could not
be otherwise duplicated. The department determined the Ocean
Ranger Program served a purpose; however, it was better that the
department move on from this program.
MR. BATES stated at this point, the department has a robust,
rigorous structure in place consisting of inspectors and marine
engineers that implement a solid program without gaps in
authority, enforcement, or coverage. The department believes
this is the most effective way to manage the industry. Though
not directly equivalent because of fund source changes, DEC
believes that communities could make better use of the $3.5
million treating and improving community wastewater discharges.
4:05:09 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 8, Current Fee Structure:
CPVEC Fee Applies to Fee
Large and small $0.70 - $1.75
Vessels scaled per lower
berth fee based
on range of berths
Ocean ranger Fee Applies to Fee
Large vessels $4 per berth
• Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance
Fee (CPVEC) established in 2001 to fund DEC oversight
of cruise ships
• Ocean ranger fees were created in 2006 to fund the
onboard observer program
MR. BATES stated that slide 8 offers an idea of what the subset
of the matrix looks like in statute. A couple of different funds
are associated with the CPVEC fee established in 2001 to fund
oversight. The Ocean Ranger Program fee was established in 2006
to fund the onboard observer program. Large vessels were subject
to the ocean ranger fee while all vessels were subject to CPVEC
fees. DEC proposes to simplify the fee structure basically by
combining both the CPVEC and ocean ranger fees.
4:06:06 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 9 to explain the simplified Proposed
Fee Structure:
• All vessels over 50 berths pay $5 per lower berth
MR. BATES said that Section 9 of SB 180 contains the proposed
simplified fee structure and he reiterated that all vessels will
pay the $5 fee.
• Large vessels pay roughly the same
MR. BATES said that large vessels currently pay about $6.8
million in berth fees. The DEC fiscal note is zero, although
there will be a slight revenue increase of about $17,000.
• Small vessels will pay increased fees in 2024
MR. BATES said that the entire fleet of small vessels currently
pay $18,000 per year. SB 180 will increase that by $80,000.
• The fee would be reduced by $1 per lower berth
for any ship that maintains a DEC-approved
electronic wastewater monitoring system
MR. BATES stated that SB 180 offers a $1 berth fee reduction for
ships that maintain an electronic monitoring program that:
- the department can work with, and
- has a clear connection to port discharges.
So, rather than $5, the vessel could pay a $4 berth fee.
MR. BATES indicated that during talks with the industry, a
rebate or true-up at the end of the year was requested for
unused berths due to CDC capacity restrictions, particularly
related to COVID. Suppose 1,000 berths are paid for on March 1
and later the CDC restricts sailings to half capacity. It would
not be appropriate to hold the industry responsible for the
unused berths. This bill would allow true-up at the end of the
year, permitting the state to issue rebates accordingly.
4:07:47 PM
SENATOR KIEHL expressed his belief that this was a per passenger
fee in the first place; he assumed there was a true-up.
SENATOR KIEHL stated that the industry presumably has a sense of
the cost for an electronic monitoring system. He asked whether
the department has had conversations with the industry about
whether the $1 rebate is sufficient to install and operate the
envisioned valve monitoring system that would make this program
work well.
MR. BATES answered that he has not had that particular
conversation with the industry in the last year. He expressed
his belief that the deputy commissioner and the commissioner had
the conversation with the industry previously. This is an
incentive. It is not a solve-all. It is a program the department
would love the industry to get behind; it would be driven by the
industry. DEC can take the data, but it is critically important
the industry is willing to provide and structure the data in a
format the department can use. He expressed his understanding
that it would take a little bit of effort and money to install
open/closed electronic monitoring on a variety of different
ports, valves, and openings. He did not know exactly how much
effort and money it would take to accomplish the task. $1 is 20
percent of the berth fee which could total $1.5 million per year
for the large fleet. The offset may be enough to be an
incentive.
4:10:03 PM
MS. POKON expressed her understanding that the state does not
have the authority under federal law to require this type of
electronic monitoring. She clarified that the state wants to
retain and fund an inspection program. This bill does not
propose to waive the fee entirely in hopes of offering the
industry financial resources for electronic monitoring. However,
given that the state lacks the authority to require electronic
monitoring, offering an incentive is the next best thing.
MR. BATES added that DEC currently gathers information from the
vessel latitude/longitude time-date stamps, where the vessel is
and where the vessel has been. The CPV is obligated to provide
that information; it is accessible through a server. Electronic
monitoring would be a not so simple add-on to this. DEC met
with the Marine Exchange recently and they have a lot of
technology. The department has a bit of information that can be
recreated, but DEC needs to have access to information. For
instance, after the pipe opens:
- what was discharged;
- what was the flow rate; and
- which pipe was used for the discharge.
The department needs a lot of additional data, this is a
science-based need, and the data matters.
4:11:39 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he did not want to give the impression
that he thought that this sort of automated system was a
replacement for inspections. He agreed with the director and
reiterated that it is necessary to know where the valve goes.
SENATOR KIEHL said that if the incentive is so small as to not
make a difference, the state will not get the benefit of
automation. On the other hand, if it is much bigger than it
needs to be, the state ends up subsidizing. He asked how this is
pegged to give the state one piece of a much broader, overall
monitoring program, but that piece is on 24/7.
MR. BATES replied that he understood.
4:12:37 PM
CHAIR REVAK asked Senator Kiehl whether he wanted follow-up data
or whether that was a comment.
SENATOR KIEHL replied it was a comment. He would be happy to
work with the department on the scope and scale as well as talk
to the industry about incentives. If it costs $37,000 a ship per
year and the system costs $50,000 to install, the cost is a
little rich. If it costs $1 million to install, it is not an
incentive at all.
4:13:09 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE surmised that the instrumentation and the data
points of large and small vessels may vary little, but the
incremental costs will be much more for smaller vessels. He said
that a fully automated monitoring system was far superior and
his belief is that in the long-term, it would save on labor
costs for inspections and other similar matters. He asked
whether vessel operators had offered feedback on this issue.
4:14:06 PM
MR. BATES replied that the incentive provision had been included
in the bill for a couple of years but there was very little
discussion on whether the incentive was enough or too much. He
offered to contact the industry and follow-up.
MR. BATES informed the committee that large vessel treatment
facilities are vastly different from small vessels. On small
vessels, marine sanitation devices are operated in accordance
with how the device was manufactured. The devices treat effluent
to about 200 fecal colony forming units per 100 milliliters of
water. That is the device's expected performance, and the best
smaller vessels can do. Tinier CPVs with smaller marine devices
could probably provide information by writing it down, like:
- when the pipes opened;
- the duration the pipes were opened; and
- the latitude longitude coordinate point of discharge.
MR. BATES emphasized that this bill proposes a more meaningful
porting-in of electronic data. This will not be an easy setup
for the department let alone for vessels, especially for large
vessels which may require moving apparatus around and have
multiple ballast tanks, holding tanks and treatment tanks. It is
critically important to the department that the pipes can be
mapped and monitored for opening/closing as well as flow rates.
He supports seeing the system come online though expects an
incrementally challenging process. He commented that he had just
been advised of some of the challenges and costs. He reiterated
that it would be wonderful if the industry could be present to
comment.
4:16:33 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE reiterated that the cost of monetizing a system
serving over 5,000 passengers will be significantly different
than a system serving over a couple hundred. It may be worth a
discussion on whether the state may need to offer greater
incentives to smaller vessels than larger vessels. He reviewed
the bill and was largely supportive. He wants more details about
cost structure and industry feedback regarding a viable price
point.
4:17:39 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 10, Local Water Quality Disparity,
which depicted one graph with 40 units (dots) in 100 milliliters
(ml) of fluid and another graph with 1.5 million units (dots)
also in 100 ml of fluid. The 40-dot fluid was relatively light
and clear while the 1.5-million-dot fluid was so thick with dots
that the fluid appeared dark and murky.
• Large cruise ship permit allows up to 40 fecal
colony forming units per 100 ml.
MR. BATES said that federal and state law require large cruise
ships to treat their wastewater through an advanced wastewater
system to a water discharge quality of 40 fecal colony forming
units per 100 ml. Small vessels treat, at best, to 200 fecal
units.
• Local wastewater treatment facility permit allows up
to 1.5 million fecal colony forming units per 100
ml.
MR. BATES said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
authorized communities to discharge at the higher level. He
recognized that water quality has its challenges. A disparity
exists between the state's expectation of the industry it
manages and the expectation for its publicly owned treatment
facilities.
• Many of the over one million yearly cruise ship
passengers will use onshore restrooms when visiting
Alaska ports.
MR. BATES reiterated that in the absence of CPVs, DEC had
observed high concentrations of bacteria, particularly human-
based material at several ports. DEC recognized that local
treatment facility exceedances directly correlate with seasonal
visitor influx and the high traffic of CPV passengers.
4:19:48 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 11, Local Water Quality to
illustrate the significant difference between the levels of
fecal colony forming units discharged in port communities verses
the maximum allowed the industry:
Fecal Colony Forming Unit
Community 301(h) Waiver? Effluent Limit(s) per #/100 ml
Juneau N Juneau Douglas:
Average monthly: 200
Average weekly: 400
Daily Maximum: 800
Mendenhall (varies seasonally):
Average monthly: 112-200
Average weekly: 168-400
Daily Maximum: 224-800
City of Y Ward Cove:
Ketchikan (Charcoal Point) Average monthly: 200
Average weekly: 400
Daily Maximum: 800
Charcoal Point:
Average monthly: 1,000,000
Daily Maximum: 1,250,000
MR. BATES stated that Juneau and Ward Cove discharge at a level
of 800 fecal colony forming units daily compared to the 40-unit
level allowed the industry.
Sitka Y Average monthly: 1,000,000
Maximum Daily: 1,500,000
Skagway Y Average monthly: 1,000,000
Maximum Daily: 1,500,000
MR. BATES explained that under a "301(h) waiver facility,"
Charcoal Point and Ketchikan discharge at 1,250,000 fecal units
daily. Sitka and Skagway are both authorized to discharge at
1,500,000 fecal units per day.
4:20:10 PM
SENATOR VON IMHOF asked how the cruise ships manage to offload
at a level of 40 colony forming units as compared to the 1.5
million discharged in local ports.
4:20:48 PM
MR. BATES answered that cruise ships have a wastewater
offloading process; however, treatment is largely accomplished
onboard. The primary level of treatment is the simplest method,
disinfecting with a chlorine compound or ultraviolet light. The
primary level of treatment significantly reduces bacteria
levels. The secondary level of treatment cleans up and
eliminates bacteria to about the 200 fecal coliform units; this
baseline is the standard used in Alaska. Treatment systems must
produce at the secondary level with the exception of 301(h)
waiver facilities. Large vessels have a tertiary level of
treatment, an advanced wastewater treatment system that kills
additional fecal coliform bacteria using methods like filtration
and additional ultraviolet radiation.
MR. BATES stated that many facilities have a "mixing zone"
associated with some discharges that span a hundred-mile radius.
He explained that it is viably possible to reduce the discharge
radius down to 100 yards using disinfection treatments like
ultraviolet light or a simple treatment of chlorine. These
treatments are massively effective.
4:22:38 PM
MR. BATES advanced to slide 12, Shore side Facility Upgrades,
stating Section 13 was a critical piece of the bill:
• A portion of the berth fees will be used to
support improvements to shore-based wastewater
treatment facilities in port communities
• DEC will establish a grant program to provide
financial assistance
MR. BATES said that DEC will establish regulations to implement
a competitive award or grant primarily focused on:
- protecting or improving public health and water quality, or
- mitigating environmental impacts caused commercial passenger
vessels or their passengers.
MR. BATES talked about the costs of establishing a grant
program. Berth fees will bring in between $6 and $8 million. If
the CPV oversight budget runs $3.5 - $4 million, then the
remaining $3.5 $4 million per year could be put towards the
grant program to aid with port community wastewater treatment
facility improvements. At the end of the day, the grant would
mitigate the effects of passenger traffic and help to alleviate
the challenges these communities face improving water quality
and effluent.
4:24:04 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said that after the 2006 initiative passed,
fecal coliform discharges were supposed to incrementally
decrease to zero over time with no mixing zones at the point of
discharge. This statutory requirement was changed about ten
years after the initiative was written into law. One reason the
statute was changed had to do with the 301(h) waiver and that
the number of fecal colonies it allowed was inequitable.
SENATOR MICCICHE expressed excitement about the proposed use of
berth fees to fund water treatment improvements for communities
with 301(h) waivers. Whether or not sufficient funds would be
available for the number one waived community in the state, this
is a unique approach. This business model might prove useful for
the city with essentially secondary water treatment for 300,000
plus people.
4:25:23 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to Section 7 and asked whether other
states require substantially equivalent CPV information
gathering as Alaska.
4:26:01 PM
MS. POKON expressed her understanding that DEC will accept the
format of similar information submitted to the Coast Guard or
other fellow regulatory entity.
4:26:24 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the term "substantially
equivalent" is a term of art or if it is used in other areas of
law. He harkened back to the time of the big debates over mixing
zones and effluent, recalling Alaska had the strictest rules. He
asked whether Alaska continues to have the strictest
regulations.
4:27:06 PM
MR. BATES answered that Section 7 is specifically about
information that Alaska requests. It is a clarifying edit
without intention of substantial or substantive change. It is
not about standards applied to other state or federal discharge
numbers. He expressed his belief that Alaska is equivalent to
federal oversight. Alaska has the ability to manage wastewater,
sewage/greywater, in Alaska. Alaska sets those standards as the
state sees fit. He mentioned that the International Maritime
Organization and federal laws that control additional discharges
from some vessels that are international in nature. He mentioned
a federal law called VIDA, Vessel Incidental Discharge Act,
which is in the process of being implemented. The state networks
with VIDA but retains discretion and authority over cruise
vessel management and wastewater discharge in the state. DEC
will continue to look at the issue if concerns remain.
4:28:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the definition of wastewater wrote
out ballast discharges. He expressed his belief that ballast
discharge was covered in previous bill language.
4:28:58 PM
MS. POKON expressed her understanding that ballast water is
outside the scope of the state authority to regulate under
federal law. The idea is to prevent a loophole. Wastewater that
is put into the ballast cannot subsequently be discharged as
"ballast" water. She expressed her belief that, generally, DEC
would not look directly at ballast water. However, if wastewater
was rerouted into the ballast, it would fall under the scope of
state regulatory authority.
4:29:35 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what the current permitting process and
standard is for small ships.
MR. BATES answered that state regulations require small vessels
to operate under best management practices and DEC reviews their
alternative plans. Alternative plans are not permitted, but they
are approved by DEC. DEC reviews the operational plan,
treatment, and discharge process. The expectation is that small
vessels treat to the level of their marine sanitation device
(MSD) that is set by Coast Guard rules. MSDs are supposed to
treat to 200 fecal colony units. This is the target level the
state expects, but small vessels have not necessarily achieved
it. Vessels were put in storage this last year due to COVID
without a lot of clean up, because it was difficult to find
workers during the pandemic. The small vessels came back up and
their numbers for fecal coliform units were particularly high.
All vessels, large and small, were expected to sample their
treatment facilities within ten days of arrival in Alaska waters
and share the numbers with the department. The numbers were
unacceptably high, so the department worked with the vessels to
get their numbers down closer to the required MSD level or
target.
CHAIR REVAK asked whether Senator Kiehl had further questions.
SENATOR KIEHL replied that his question was answered.
4:32:22 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the meeting.
4:33:00 PM
CHAIR REVAK said he planned to hold the bill in committee for
further review. He opened public testimony on SB 180.
4:33:36 PM
KARLA HART, Representing Self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 180, stating she has followed the cruise ship
industry for almost 40 years and supported the passage of the
2006 initiative to create the Ocean Ranger Program. She was also
active in Governor Parnell's administration era rollbacks of
components of the cruise initiative. She said that two minutes
is insufficient time to get through everything, so she pointed
out that the three major cruise corporations represented in
Alaska have engaged in illegal processes relating to dumping
things into waters, and all three have pled guilty in federal
court to multiple violations. Two of those companies used "magic
pipes" to bypass regulation, a major component, across multiple
vessels, showing a corporate culture.
MS. HART said that Carnival Corporation, which owns Princess,
Holland America, Carnival Cruise Line and others, is still on
active probation for violations, including violations caught by
Alaska Ocean Rangers. They continue to violate their probation.
She said she will submit a letter to the committee about the
latest probation hearing. They have a culture of violations
which remain unreformed during the probation period. Judge Sykes
in Florida requires corporate CEOs to appear in person at each
hearing; she has threatened them individually and the companies
collectively with arrest if they don't comply. Carnival
Corporation brands are recidivist criminals, so it is critical
that ocean rangers are on board ships. DEC talks a lot about
fecal matter, which is important, but the industry dumps oily
and toxic waste that should not be dumped under any conditions.
Alaskans wanted eyes onboard and that is why they voted for the
Cruise Ship Initiative and to have ocean rangers onboard.
MS. HART expressed concern that the Governor's Office did not
issue a press release, though there was two other press releases
the day of introduction. People are unaware of this bill. She
urged the committee to hold the bill and notify the public about
the bill so Alaskan residents have a chance to testify.
MS. HART said the existing program has been revenue neutral.
DEC's advocacy for cost effectiveness is a little ironic because
money is collected from cruise passengers, then buying berths at
full-rack rate back from the cruise industry. So, the industry
is making money on this except for the fact that the onboard
ocean rangers catch their violations and cost the industry
millions of dollars in penalties. She intended to deliver
information to offices next week. She requested the committee to
slow down and give Alaskans a chance to comment. It is not just
about fecal matter.
CHAIR REVAK encouraged Ms. Hart to submit written testimony to
the committee if she had more to share.
4:37:48 PM
CHAIR REVAK closed public testimony on SB 180.
[CHAIR REVAK held SB 180 in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 180 DEC Presentation 2.14.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Fiscal Note DEC State Support Services 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Letter of Transmittal 2.2.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Fiscal Note DEC Water Quality, Infrastructure Support & Financing 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Sectional Analysis 2.8.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 Fiscal Note DEC Administrative Services 1.28.2022.pdf |
SRES 2/14/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |