Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/27/2001 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act requiring the owners or operators of certain
passenger vessels operating in the marine waters of the
state to register the vessels; establishing
information-gathering, record keeping, and reporting
requirements relating to the vessels' graywater and
sewage; prohibiting the discharge of untreated sewage
from the vessels unless exempted; placing limits on
discharges of treated sewage and graywater from the
vessels unless exempted; establishing a commercial
passenger vessel coastal protection fund; establishing
a fee on commercial passenger vessels, that are not
exempt from the fee, for each voyage during which the
vessels operate in the marine waters of the state based
on the overnight accommodation capacity of the vessels
determined with reference to the number of lower
berths; establishing penalties for failure to comply
with certain laws relating to the vessels; authorizing
the Department of Environmental Conservation to
encourage and recognize superior environmental
protection efforts related to commercial passenger
vessels; authorizing exemptions from some laws relating
to discharges from the vessels and from the fee
requirements related to the vessels; requiring a report
from the Department of Environmental Conservation
concerning matters relating to the vessels; and
providing for an effective date."
SPENCER WOOD, LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, U.S. COAST GUARD
provided information on the legislation. He noted that he
has been involved with the Alaska Cruise Ship initiative
since its inception. He is the co-chair of the Wastewater-
Working Group with the Department of Environmental
Conservation. The Coast Guard has tried to assess potential
conflicts with existing federal law and the regulatory
package developed to implement Title 14. No conflicts with
federal regulation were found in HB 260.
Co-Chair Mulder asked if Senator Murkowski's legislation
contains provisions for the Coast Guard to implement testing
and monitoring of vessel discharges. Commander Wood stated
that there are provisions for vessel monitoring and observed
that they are not in conflict with HB 260. Title 14 allows
the Coast Guard to develop sampling protocol. A sampling
regime is not specified.
Co-Chair Mulder observed that some questions have come up
regarding the absence of the term "pollutants" in the bill.
He asked what discharges would not be covered by state or
federal law with the addition of the legislation. Mr. Wood
stated that he did not know of any discharges that would not
be covered. He added that graywater would be covered under
Title 14. He acknowledged that Title 14 is silent on
graywater beyond a mile and with a speed of six knots other
than provision for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to establish standards beyond that distance.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that claims have been made that
violations such as those that occurred by the Royal
Caribbean Cruise Lines would be left uncovered. Mr. Wood
clarified that under federal discharge standards it is
illegal for any vessel to discharge hazardous waste into
U.S. waters. He observed that the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) covers the discharge of hazardous waste.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that there are extensive recording
provisions under RCRA.
Representative John Davies asked questions regarding the
reports required under RCRA. Commander Wood could not
provided details on the reporting provisions. He observed
that it is an EPA standard and EPA report.
Representative Davies referred to the Royal Caribbean
violation. Commander Wood reviewed the Coast Guard's role in
the situation. He observed that the violation stretched over
waters in Alaska and Florida and included the discharge of
hazardous substance and oil. The company was fined for lying
to the Coast Guard and for inadequate record keeping. A
trail behind the vessel was spotted from the air by night
with an airfield surveillance radar system (FLUR).
Inspectors boarded the vessel and questioned the crew and
photographed the piping systems aboard the vessel. When the
vessel came into Florida inspectors discovered that the
piping had been changed.
Representative John Davies asked if the U.S. Coast Guard
routinely monitor cruise ships in Alaskan waters through
sampling or routine inspections. Mr. Wood explained that
ships are inspected quarterly. The primary focus on the
vessel is the inspection of safety equipment. About 20
percent of their effort is involved with environmental
compliance. The record book, the water/oil separator and
marine sanitation devises are checked. As a result of Title
14 regulations have been drafted for compliance with all
environmental law.
Representative Davies observed that regulations address the
requirement for equipment, without sampling, to assure that
the equipment is functioning correctly. Commander Wood
agreed. Representative Davies questioned who would do the
sampling under the new sampling protocol. Commander Wood
noted that the cruise industry would be required to hire a
third party contractor approved by the Coast Guard.
In response to a question by Representative Hudson,
Commander Wood discussed the approval process of marine
sanitation devises under 46.CFR. Equipment must be designed
so that 38 of 40 samples drawn over a 10-day period would
meet a standard of no more than 200 fecal coliform and 150
total suspended solids. The Coast Guard oversees the
construction of vessels and the installation of equipment.
Once the system is installed there are regular spot
examinations. Samples are not used to ascertain if the
equipment is meeting the design standard. The equipment is
viewed in regards to changes that might affect its
functionality.
Representative Hudson questioned the penalties for discharge
of pollutants under federal law. Commander Wood noted that
there are criminal penalties for pollution depending on the
intent and the amount discharged in U.S. waters.
In response to a question by Representative Lancaster, Co-
Chair Mulder noted that the legislation does not apply to
vessels of under 50 passengers. Commander Wood noted that
laws regarding marine sanitation devises pertain to vessels
of under 50 passengers. There is no other oversight.
Representative Davies asked if the U.S. Coast Guard
supervises the construction of foreign flagged vessels.
Commander Wood explained that a marine safety center reviews
plans and build outs for ships, which are operating in the
United States.
Representative Davies asked for the result of marine safety
inspections that occurred in the year 2000 cruise season.
Commander Wood noted that 15 vessels exceed the standards
for fecal coliform. Only 5 of these ships were reviewed
before they left Alaskan waters in order to address why the
standards were exceeded.
REPRESENTATIVE BETH KERTULLA testified in support of the
legislation.
When I was a child, my mother wouldn't let me go
downtown alone past the clock on Franklin Street.
Today, in part because of the cruise industry, we have
a beautiful, safe downtown, and an important economic
base for Juneau and for the rest of the state. I
understand the need to cooperate and to work together
for resolution of issues, and I have worked very hard
to do that along with many, many other people. That
work has taken a good deal of time during the last two
years, and some days it's felt like it has been a lot
longer than two years. But again it has not been just
me working. It has been many, many people. From
community members to DEC to the Governor to the
industry, to the Coast Guard.
Representative Kerttula stressed the need for our state to
regulate the cruise ship industry She noted that she has
some serious problems with the legislation.
Representative Kerttula expressed disagreement with the
House Majority Press Release:
In HB 260, Alaska establishes its own discharge
standards, demands the cruise ship industry monitor
and report on its compliance, and requires it to pay
the costs of making sure the clean waters folks come
north to enjoy remain clean.
Representative Kerttula maintained that the legislation
completely cedes state authority to establish its own
graywater discharge standards to the federal government (the
EPA). She noted that HB 260 says that Alaska will live by
whatever graywater standard EPA defines, if and when that
happens. Until then, HB 260 sets a standard that begins in
2003. She asserted that this delegation of authority to EPA
probably isn't legal, and stated that she could not imagine
why we would "ever, give up our right to create our own
laws, which is something U.S. Senator Murkowski made
completely clear that we have an absolute right to do under
his recent federal legislation". She stressed that Alaskans
have a right to know what is happening in their waters.
Representative Kerttula referred to the demand on the cruise
industry to monitor and report on its compliance. She
stressed the distinction between what goes to the state and
what goes to the federal government and how easy it is for
each to compliment, cooperate and coordinate information.
She observed that her bill (HB 22) and the Governor's bill
(HB 183) completely cover the monitoring and reporting of
pollutants. She observed that HB 260 has removed the
comprehensive definition of "pollutant" to limit monitoring
and reporting to only treated sewage and graywater. She
emphasized that treated sewage and graywater are not the
only substances coming off of cruise ships.
We should be monitoring and the industry should be
reporting again to the state (as is required in HB 22)
on all biological materials, chemical wastes, hazardous
substances, hazardous waste, industrial waste, and
other types of waste streams.
You may hear that this is unnecessary because none of
these substances are a problem. Fine. If they aren't it
should not be much of an issue for the industry to
report and DEC to monitor. But we deserve the right to
know, the fundamental right for the state to get the
information, and not just to know about treated sewage
and a watered down definition of graywater that doesn't
include these other waste streams.
Representative Kerttula observed that the industry has hair
salons, photo labs, medical care, and dry cleaners on board.
She maintained that the state should not, as a starting
point, give up the right to know what is in any discharge or
offloading from industry vessels.
Representative Kerttula asserted that, concerning monitoring
and reporting, HB 260 took a step backward when it used
language from an old CS for House Bill 22 that except for
exemptions, completely shackles DEC's authority to implement
regulations to deal with monitoring and reporting. She noted
that the committee staff has an amendment to correct this
error.
Representative Kerttula observed that there is a huge debate
about paying the costs of making sure Alaska has clean
water. House Bill 260 requires some fees. She referred to an
amendment that would correct the problem of fee collections
by the Department of Environmental Conservation and
understood that the Committee would introduce it. She
emphasized that the legislation with the amendment would
still only pertain to sewage and graywater.
Representative Kerttula discussed her other concerns with
the legislation:
The bill drops an inexpensive, non-litigation sanction
for failing to register, it is ambiguous as to a
definition of inland waters, it excludes negotiated
rulemaking... it fails to deal at all with air
emissions. If HB 22, or the Governor's bill, HB 183,
were before you, these issues would either be resolved,
or could be readily dealt with.
Representative Croft asked where cruise ships winter. He
noted that there is a fundamental difference in Southeast
Alaskan waters and the Caribbean in relationship to
filtering of pollutants. He suggested that this difference
would require different solutions.
Representative Kertulla noted that the "dilution of
pollution is the solution" is a saying at the Department of
Environmental Conservation. She referred to the unique
construction of the Alexander strait.
Representative John Davies referred to the state's right to
know. Representative Kertulla noted that she has history
with regulation and permitting through her previous job as a
deputy attorney general for resource issues. She observed
that no other industry is allowed to operate without
regulation. She felt that the industry would support the
state's right to know and noted that industry has been
working with the state to get information. Industry has
stepped up to the plate on many of these issues.
Representative John Davies asked if there are gaps in the
information being collected by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Representative Kerttulla noted that there is a limited
definition of graywater under federal regulation. Federal
law would not report on biological materials, chemical
wastes, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, industrial
waste, incinerator residue, medical waste, munitions, oil,
radioactive materials. She acknowledged that it might not be
a huge issue. She observed that the industry would only have
to report that they do not have these substances on board or
that they are held and off loaded in Canada.
TAPE HFC 01 - 101, Side B
Representative John Davies maintained that it is appropriate
to have different state and federal regulatory conditions.
Representative Hudson observed that no discharge is allowed
unless the vessel is underway at 6 knots and inside one
mile. He summarized that there would be no discharge
permitted in the inside passage. He questioned if pollutant
discharges have been detected, such as suspended solids.
Representative Kerttulla acknowledged that it is difficult
to tell and emphasized that there is not enough information.
GRETCHEN KAISER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KERTULLA clarified
that some of last summer's samples of graywater identified 5
or 6 heavy metals and other substances. Representative
Kerttulla acknowledged that they were not cited.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Ms.
Kaiser noted that HB 260 referenced Senator Murkowski's
federal legislation, which allows a vessel to drop below the
fecal coliform and total suspended solids standard in the
federal legislation if they have better equipment that can
process their waste to a higher standard. If they can meet a
more stringent standard they are able to discharge less than
one mile from shore at less than 6 knots.
Representative Croft referred to section (d). He questioned
if the legislation would prevent discharge of photo
chemicals. Representative Kerttulla did not know and pointed
out that it is not treated sewage.
JOHN HANSEN, PRESIDENT, NORTHWEST CRUISE LINE ASSOCIATION
testified via teleconference. He noted that there are six
principles that should be incorporated into any piece of
legislation. Firstly, the legislation should be carefully
crafted in order to avoid ambiguity and overlap with federal
legislation or existing state law. Secondly, standards
expected of the industry should be clearly
established. A timeline to meet graywater standards should
also be included. Thirdly, there should be clear penalties
for breech. Fourthly, there should be provisions for record
keeping with records available to the state. Fifthly, there
should be a program of monitoring and testing. Sixthly, the
industry should pay for reasonable monitoring, testing, and
research, which are consistent with industry practice. He
observed that HB 22 met the principles and he had previously
spoken in its support (before the House Transportation
Committee). He added that HB 260 appears to meet the
principles and provides some additional features such as a
fee schedule to pay for monitoring, testing and research, a
process to issue variances, fees to fund capacity studies,
and programs to recognize excellence. He stated that HB 260
would give better protection (than HB 22). He maintained
that their goal is to meet standards.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Mulder, Mr. Hansen
clarified that the industry is voluntarily retrofitting
ships. He added that a number of ships would be fitted with
a new technology to treat black-water and graywater beyond
standards in the legislation. He observed that there has
been a great deal of sharing of information regarding
successful equipment.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that standards must be met by 2003. He
questioned if the timetable is reasonable for retrofitting.
Mr. Hansen thought that the cruise lines could meet the
standard for graywater in the timeframe.
In response to a question by Representative Lancaster, Mr.
Hansen explained that a variety of technology is being
developed, including ultra violet.
Representative John Davies observed that HB 22 contained
reporting on pollutants and wastes that are not covered in
HB 260. Mr. Hansen maintained that the Coast Guard already
requires reporting. He asserted that the data would be
available to the state.
Representative John Davies asked if there is a requirement
in HB 260 for the Coast Guard data to be reported to the
state of Alaska. He maintained that the state should have an
independent requirement for the information, but
acknowledged that the information could be coordinated. The
sampling data and report could be provided to both entities.
Representative Hudson recalled that Mr. Hansen indicated
that a number of the ships would use shore power while in
Juneau.
Mr. Hansen clarified that there would be five Princess line
ships that would plug into shore power during the current
year. There would be no propulsion engines or generators
opertating during this time. Two ships would use gas
turbines instead of diesel for the main propulsion systems.
Diesel systems in other ships are being improved. Most ships
would have stack monitors for visible emissions and a
television monitor pointed at the stack.
Co-Chair Mulder noted that these steps are voluntary.
Representative Hudson asked if the industry is under-writing
a program to monitor outside of their companies.
Mr. Hansen noted that a program was started last August to
monitor ambient air quality. The data was made available to
the Environmental Protection Agency. There was not a problem
from an ambient air standpoint. Monitors are being placed at
higher and lower elevations. The total cost would be $130
thousand dollars for the season. Monitoring would be
continued during the winter months to provide a baseline.
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if any other state requires as
strict a standard as proscribed in HB 260. Mr. Hansen was
not aware of any other state with strict standards, which
were as strict.
TIM JUNE, LYNNE CANAL CONSERVATION COUNCIL testified via
teleconference. He asked the Committee to support HB 22 or
the Governor's bill. He maintained that a revocable clause
is needed to deny entry of multiple offenders into the
state. He observed that the judicial problem has been a
barrier to regulation of the industry. The permit system
would be similar to (the one used in) Glacier Bay. Convicted
felons are not allowed to operate within the park boundary.
He observed that the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line was barred
for 5 years after their violations. He stressed that ships
should meet Alaskan water quality standards, just like other
industries that operate in the state. He recommended that
that the Alaskan public deserves third party verification.
The public has an interest in protecting the resource in the
state.
Mr. June discussed the Royal Caribbean violation. He
asserted that industry engineers routinely referred to their
logbooks as fairy tale books in Norwegian. He maintained
that third party monitoring is essential. The first testing
by the state of Alaska in the year 2000 showed a number of
violations. There are a number of things that have not been
tested for, such as toxicity. This is a concern. Their
primary question is: are the discharges toxic in a marine
environment? There are no testing plans. The legislation
also fails to look at elevated chemical oxygen demand (COD)
levels. Elevated COD levels were found in the previous
years. There were few tests in the year 2000 and tests that
were done were inconclusive and incomplete. He referred to
waste streams. The legislation looks at gray and black
water. They have requested testing of all discharges by the
industry. He referred to the question: Why should state and
federal standards be the same? He pointed out that Alaska
has a unique environment and an economic requirement since
many of the state's industries demand clean water.
Mr. June discussed the issue in regards to commercial
fisheries. He observed that he recently attended a Southeast
region wide Native environmental conference. Concerns were
mentioned regarding cruise ship discharges. Seaweed in the
Haines area has been affected. He acknowledged that there
are other contributing factors and emphasized the need for
more information. Lesions have been found on salmon during
the last five years. Fishers are attempting to market Alaska
salmon as organic. Stringent water quality regulations are
needed to assure the consumer that these salmon are clean.
He noted that nets in Lynn Canal are collecting a brown
residue, which must be washed after every set. There are a
number of swimming beaches that should be tested for impacts
on public health. The industry had the Seward SeaLife Center
do a review on data collected. The study recommended a 1,000
square area to dissipate the existing discharges. This would
be a 400 sq mile area per ship per day. An area of 100 miles
by 4 miles would be needed for one ship discharging per day
or half of the Inside Passage. There can be as many as 5 - 6
ships discharging in this area at a time.
JOE LEBEAU, MAT-SU testified via teleconference. He observed
that Alaskan waters are special to Alaskans and the rest of
the world. He referred to RCRA. He noted that new chemicals
are developed almost every day. Some chemicals used in
cleaning solutions are not regulated by RCRA but are still
toxic. Some chemicals that are safe by themselves are
dangerous when mixed. He maintained that it is necessary to
know what chemicals are in the discharges in Alaskan waters.
He noted that filter feeders such as clams and mussels
consume and concentrate wastes discharged from cruise
vessels. He maintained that the cruise ship industry's track
history in U.S. waters prove the need for enforcement of
environmental laws. The cruise ship-sampling program in 2000
showed that graywater was more dangerous than most municipal
wastewater discharges. Discharged black water often did not
meet standards. State oversight is needed of the industry.
RION SCHMIDT, CORDOVA testified via teleconference in
support of strong discharge controls. He maintained that the
state should have the right to manage the industry. He
observed that the industry could dump waste in any manner in
Prince Williams Sound. He stressed that toxins would go to
the bottom and remain there. He emphasized the importance of
clean water. He suggested that Prince Williams Sound and
Resurrection Bay be made into a no discharge zone.
JOANNA RIECHHOLD, CORDOVA testified via teleconference in
opposition of HB 260. She urged the Committee to pass
something with teeth and maintained that HB 260 does not
have sufficient teeth.
SUE SCHRADER, JUNEAU read the testimony of DIANE, MCBRIDE,
HOMER. Ms. McBride has been a coastal Alaskan resident since
1967, working as a fisherwoman, teacher, and small business
owner
HB 260 is shocking. There is simply no time for the
public process to occur before the end of this session.
Alaskans have had less than 24 hours to review this
bill. This is a closed-door bill, worked with the
cruise ship industry, so that they can get what they
want. This looks terrible to Alaskans, and it is a poor
reflection on the legislative body supporting this 11th
hour bill. Many people, in good faith, have worked for
two years on Representative Kerttula's bill and the
Governor's bill. These bills allowed full public
process.
Why would you want to pre-empt the state? It is the
state that should monitor, test, and enforce. Voluntary
compliance and reporting by this huge industry just
will not cut the muster with Alaskans. HB 260 is not a
compromise bill at all.
It has no provisions regarding the big pollutants -
hazardous wastes, air emissions, and solid wastes. DEC
needs to be the regulating body - so sampling,
inspections, and reporting can be accomplished. The
state has the right to know, and Alaskans have the
right to know what the cruise industry is putting into
our waters and air. We want a comprehensive picture of
what they are leaving behind. The cruise industry,
bringing in almost one million passengers, into state
waters, can be the state's largest polluter. Alaskans
don't want another big surprise like last summer.
We want clean air and water. I conclude that HB 260 is
getting special treatment, and this is wrong. It must
go through the proper public process, and at the very
least, be heard in transportation and resource
committee hearings. HB 260 is bad for Alaska.
Hopefully, HB 22 will get it's hearing in this
committee as quickly as HB 260 did. Thank you. Diane
McBride
TAPE HFC 01 - 102, Side A
SUE SCHRADER, ALASKA CONSERVATION VOTERS testified against
the legislation. She did not feel that the industry would be
testifying to "glowing" reports of air emissions if
violations had not been found and prosecuted. She noted that
over the past several years, many of their members have
actively participated in public opportunities to discuss
regulation of cruise ship discharges and volunteered hours
of time to work constructively with industry and government
agencies to address this issue. She noted that they
supported legislation introduced last year and earlier this
year by Rep. Kerttula and Governor Knowles.
Ms. Schrader observed that they have procedural concerns and
substantive concerns with HB 260. She maintained that there
had been disdain for the public process. She expressed
concern with the "bill's failure to protect Alaskans and our
resources from a wide range of pollutants that the bill
conveniently neglects to address" and added that "if the
cruise ship industry is as clean as they would like the
world to believe, they should have no hesitancy submitting
to monitoring and reporting of air emissions and solid and
hazardous waste discharges."
AMY CROOK, CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND PARTICIPATION, JUNEAU,
commented that she had worked as a technical advisor with
the Department of Environmental Conservation Cruise Ship
Initiative Working Group on wastewater concerns for the last
year and a half. She expressed concern with the process that
brought the bill before the Committee. She maintained that
the legislation circumvents collaborative efforts. She spoke
to technical concerns. She referred to data by the
Department of Environmental Conservation and the Seward Sea
Life Center. Last year's study found priority pollutants,
largely heavy metals, in high concentrations. Copper, lead
and zinc were found to be up to a thousand times higher than
current state water quality standards from several ships
from several places. House Bill 260 would not continue to
sample for these contaminants. These heavy metals
concentrate in seafood. House Bill 260 would not address the
impacts of the heavy metals.
Ms. Crook stressed that the results of the discharges do
have concentrations of contaminants that will build up in
seafood and shellfish. She added that the industry has been
requested to do toxicity testing. Every other industry in
the state has to look at the toxicity of their waste
streams. As the cruise ship industry grows, there will be
higher levels of discharge into smaller and smaller areas,
which concentrates the rate. The industry has not looked at
areas that have high sensitivity where the wastes are not
causing and in the future will cause impacts to resources or
residents that harvest and recreate in those areas.
Ms. Crook expressed concern with toxicity, which could cause
death or long-term harm in the resources. The concentration
of contaminates into smaller areas is of great concern. She
stressed the need for the cruise industry to look at some of
the sensitive areas in Southeast where the ships go
everyday. She stressed the need to assure that discharge in
areas of low flushing are not occurring in order to prevent
the concentration of contaminates. The bill would not allow
that sampling to go forth.
Ms. Crook stated that the state and local interests have the
best understanding of how to address the needs of the state
of Alaska. She argued that the EPA does not understand local
issues and how to address them. A regulatory program would
help the cruise industry to assure that their discharges are
clean, which would result in good PR (public relations).
They could assure passengers that they are not harming the
areas that they are visiting. The legislation circumvents
the ability of the state to take the program forward.
Ms. Crook referred to hard rock mining and the affect of
that industry on shellfish and seafood.
Ms. Crook summarized that the Seward Sea Life Center agrees
with the recommendations brought forth for toxicity testing,
bioaccumulation testing and review of no discharge areas in
sensitive areas and areas near shore. She advised that the
recommendations come from the scientific community.
Representative Hudson asked if Ms. Crook would ban all
cruise ships from Alaskan waters if she were a policy maker.
Ms. Crook explained that she would not and stated that she
would ask the state to consider the same issues, which every
other industry has been asked to consider. She stated that
she would look at the information being brought forth. Right
now, she counseled the Committee to look at the areas with
the highest resource value and the resources that are being
harmed and either reduce the number of ships or not
discharge in those areas. In the long term, the industry
should be brought into compliance with existing standards.
In response to a question by Co-Chair Williams, Ms. Crooks
explained that the Coast Guard, Department of Environmental
Conservation and a third party contractor provided data.
Representative John Davies asked what were the sources of
heavy metal pollutants and questioned where testing should
occur. Ms. Crook stated that the next step would be a
toxicity identification evaluation and then a toxicity
reduction evaluation. All other industry in the state would
have to go through these steps when they find contaminates
in their wastewater. A toxicity identification evaluation
would look at all discharges and identify where contaminates
are coming from. All waste streams would be reviewed. Then
there would be analysis of each of the contaminate stations
to determine why they were generated. There are a tremendous
number of fixes.
Representative John Davies asked if waste streams were
identified from those uses. Ms. Crook noted that the
industry has been requested to look at the waster streams
individually to allow understanding of the contaminant
level. Instead samples were taken as a composite to save
money. Ms. Crook replied that it is a short-term intense
analysis. The same level of investigation would not have to
be repeated once the evaluation were done.
DANIELLE BROWN, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to the
legislation. She stressed the importance of the coastal
waters of Alaska and the coastal marine resources. She did
not think that the cruise ship industry is under siege and
stated that she would rather have the cruise ships out of
Alaska then have them pollute Alaskan waters.
Ms. Brown noted that she kayaked 4 1/2 months: over 1100
miles in British Columbia and Southeast Alaska. She
primarily sustained herself on the marine resources: crab,
fish, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, clams, oysters, and
seaweeds. She emphasized that the state needs to do testing,
monitoring and enforcement. She maintained that the state
cannot rely on the cruise ships "voluntary compliance" and
pointed to recent occurrences of discharge into Alaskan
waters.
Ms. Brown asserted that there is a public right to know
issue regarding the safety of the marine resources. She
pointed out that HB 260 does not regulate air emissions,
waste discharge or hazardous waste.
Ms. Brown noted that the Governor and Representative Beth
Kerttula introduced other bills (HB 183 and HB 22). She
maintained that Representative Beth Kerttula's bill, HB 22,
is more comprehensive. She noted that HB 260 is a
transportation and resource issue and questioned the amount
of public input.
ROBERT REGES, ATTORNEY, CRUISE CONTROL INC., JUNEAU, spoke
to questions raised in the Committee during the course of
the meeting. He observed that he was in environmental law
for 16 years: four of which were focused solely on RCRA. He
noted that this is not the first legislation of its kind. A
bill similar to HB 22, which addressed cruise ship control,
was adopted by the state of California.
Mr. Reges stressed that the state should be doing more than
the federal government or the state of California. He
pointed out that there are no islands in California. The
(cruise ship) operations are different in other states
because of the island situation. He noted that 15 to 20
percent of the gross revenues generated by the cruise lines
th
is earned in Alaska. Mr. Reges stated that Juneau is the 5
most visited destination in the world. Alaska is getting the
bulk of the impacts. In addition, Alaska has other issues,
such as subsistence. He referred to the Florida Keys and a
study of impacts.
Mr. Reges characterized HB 260 as a "ask me no questions and
I will tell you no lies" bill. He acknowledged that not
everything in HB 260 is bad. The fee structure is admirable.
He applauded the Coastal Protection Fund and the recognition
program. He added that HB 260 reaches the smaller vessels of
50 instead of 500 and has a compliance schedule for smaller
operators allowing years to come up to speed. He
acknowledged that some provisions (in HB 260) are
exceptional and should be added to HB 22. He stressed that
HB 22 should be used as the vehicle because of what is not
in HB 260.
Mr. Reges spoke to hazardous waste. Under RCRA it is a
violation to dump raw hazardous waste. He pointed out that
all wastes that go into the graywater waste streams from
rooms are household hazardous wastes, which are not
regulated by RCRA. These could be regulated on the cruise
ships and are captured under HB 22. Dry cleaners, hair
facilities and other semi-commercial facilities are
considered as conditionally exempt small quantity
generators. There is no permitting or reporting unless they
are off-loaded. He acknowledged that it would be a violation
to dump wastes overboard, but emphasized that it would be
hard to detect. Federal legislation only deals with body
waste. The definition of "graywater" in HB 260 excludes
other waste streams. The definition in HB 22 comes from the
federal Clean Water Act and does not exclude other waste
streams. HB 22 had a provision to require reporting of mixed
substances.
Mr. Reges discussed solid wastes. He noted that HB 22 asks
the industry to tell where off loaded wastes are put. He
pointed out that the information serves several good
purposes and was not previously objected to by the industry.
The use of shore based infrastructure results in the need to
anticipate off loading. In addition, under HB 260 a less
than honorable operator could put wastes on a small
noncommercial vessel and dump them without penalty.
Mr. Reges referred to air pollution. He emphasized that
Alaska has unique terrene. Vessels have continuous emissions
monitors, which resulted from a compromise in a litigation
settlement. He spoke in support of inclusion of air
monitoring provisions in the legislation. He suggested that
there could be immunity for self-enforcement.
Mr. Reges noted that HB 260 does not pick up priority
pollutants. Operators, under HB 260, could discharge
directly from waste streams from on board beauty salons and
photo processing because it is not graywater. House Bill 260
also took out the sanctions provision of HB 22. He noted the
state could assess damages to an egregious violator under HB
260, but HB 22 also developed penalties for those that
failed to register.
TAPE HFC 01 - 102, Side B
Mr. Reges stated that HB 260 suffers from an under inclusive
regulatory enabling provision. He explained that the power
to gather more information is not implicit in the Department
of Environmental Conservation's obligation to report. The
provision states that the department must assess information
submitted by industry, which is limited. He felt that it
would be difficult for the department to use implied
authority under the reporting authority to bolster a
narrowly crafted enabling provision. This provision is under
inclusive and the department needs enough authority to
secure data.
Representative Hudson asked if the department would have
access to the Coast Guard's inspections and reports. Mr.
Reges responded that they could ask, but noted that the data
could be enforcement sensitive and protected under the
Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies are reluctant
to share with state agencies because the public record laws
of Alaska are much broader.
Mr. Reges submitted a written comparison (copy on file.) He
concluded that the substance of HB 22 should be included:
off loading provision, provision for pollutants, sanctions
and administrative penalties.
Representative Lancaster asked how often a ship has to
discharge. Mr. Reges observed that vessels vary. Some have
longer periods, as much as 6 days; others must discharge in
a matter of hours. Representative Hudson observed that many
of the water systems are salt water and on shore facilities
would corrode if they were used.
Representative Croft referred to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976. He questioned if RCRA has the
vessel underway at 6 knot, 1-mile restrictions. Mr. Reges
observed that RCRA has no provisions in regards to vessels.
He provided a brief history of RCRA. He explained that the
Act was crafted in 1976 because the Air Pollution Act and
the Clean Water Act resulted in a consolidation of wastes.
Vessels are excluded from many of the provisions in the
regulatory scheme. Specific to cruise ships, any wastes that
are hazardous, that come out of the passenger rooms, are not
regulated in any way by RCRA. On shore, a permit would be
required under the Clean Water Act. That which is exempt
from RCA is picked up under the monitoring provisions of the
permit under the Clean Water Act. Vessels are not subject to
this permitting. He acknowledged that EPA may have the
authority, but noted that EPA has never regulated these
pollutants.
Representative Croft questioned if either the Clean Water
Act or RCRA have provisions similar to the underway at 6
knots, 1 mile idea. Mr. Reges noted that neither contain
these requirements. The language is in the Murkowski
legislation.
Representative Croft observed that Murkowski's federal
legislation, HB 183 and HB 22 understand that there is a
difference between discharging at a stop near the shore and
discharging in motion. He concluded that if the discharge of
these pollutants are not restricted than discharge could
occur near shore.
Mr. Reges agreed and explained that under HB 260 a distinct
waste stream from a photo processing lab that was piped
straight over the side would not violate HB 260. It would be
a violation of RCRA, but there would be no way for EPA to
know.
Mr. Reges noted that the Coast Guard found the discharge of
the Royal Caribbean during an inspection. The Coast Guard
ascertained that piping had been changed. He observed that
under HB 22, the industry would not have to monitor for the
waste streams in the graywater if the movement of the waste
stream was reported with precision. Reporting of waste
streams would have to be reported.
In response to a question by Representative Croft, Mr. Reges
explained that there are two categories of hazardous waste
under RCRA. One is the concentration base; is it
concentrated enough to fail a toxicity test. There are a
list of items that are hazardous, such as dry cleaning,
under any concentration. Commercial operations on the vessel
are generators of hazardous waste. If there is a conditional
exemption, wastes can be handled at any approved solid waste
facility. Dumping over the side is not an approved solid
waste facility and would be a violation of RCRA. The problem
with HB 260 is that there would be no way for the state to
know and very little way for the Coast Guard to find out,
except through luck. HB 22 set up a regime to follow the
waste stream.
RANDY RAY, US CRUISE SHIP ASSOCIATION testified in support
of the legislation. He assured members that the Association
shares the goal of protecting Alaska. He noted that their
ships carry 36 to 135 passengers, with on member presently
building a vessel for 249 passengers, which would be used
for the Alaska trade. He observed that their vessels are
operationally different from the large cruise vessels. He
emphasized that combining small and larger vessels into one
law can lead to problems. Their vessels currently discharge
4,000 gallons of gray and black water a day. Large cruise
ships discharge 250,000 to 300,000 gallons. They use marine
sanitation devices, certified by the Coast Guard. He noted
that 200 fecal coliform must be meet in 38 of 40 samples.
The two samples that are thrown out can be higher. The bill
requires that all samples meet the standard every time. If
not, severe penalties are levied. He noted that new
technology would not work on smaller cruise ships. Their
systems use salt water and would not work with the new
systems. The systems also require large space not available
on smaller ships. Smaller vessels must rely on standards
with 10 - 20 year old technology. He pointed out that they
were told that they did not need to do monitoring. They self
monitored anyway and found that they were in need of
improvement. One of their vessels passed both the gray and
black water tests. Other vessels are communicating with this
one to assess what is working. They have continued to test
even in foreign waters and there has been improvement.
Mr. Ray observed that the legislation would make allowances
to exempt small vessel operators until the year 2006. This
would allow them a chance to ferret out new technology and
have it installed. He questioned if the exemption would
apply. Currently, the definition is limited to vessels below
200 passengers. He reiterated that one of their members is
building a vessel for 249 passengers. He observed that the
only technology available to this operator is what is
available today. The size definition would penalize the
operator who is trying to build a U.S. flag boat to come to
Alaska. Senator Murkowski's legislation in recognition of
these problems set the limit at 500 passengers.
Representative Kerttula's legislation also used a definition
of 500 passengers.
Mr. Ray discussed page 9, exemption for certain smaller
vessels. He noted that the department "might," grant an
exemption for commercial passenger vessels. He asked that
"might" be changed (to require the exemption). He also
requested that 200 passengers be changed to a higher number,
perhaps the same as Senator Murkowski's (500).
Co-Chair Mulder questioned if most ships are either below
250 or significantly higher. Mr. Ray noted that that there
are some ships on the Mississippi River that carry 498
passengers.
Mr. Ray referred to subsection (2) and (3) on page 9:
(2) Owner or operator demonstrates that environmental
protection equivalent to that afforded by the
prohibitions in AS 46.03.463(a) - (c) can be attained
through other means appropriate for the specific
configuration or operation of the vessel and the owner
or operator agrees to use those other means;
3) Owner or operator submits satisfactory evidence that
additional time is needed to make the changes that
would be necessary to eliminate the discharges that are
prohibited under AS 46.03.463(a) - (c); and
Mr. Ray suggested that the use of "and" at the end of
subsection (3) would allow the Department of Environmental
Conservation to require a more stringent standard. He
explained that they are concerned about subsection (c) on
page 9:
(c) As a condition of granting an exemption under this
section, the department may impose special terms and
conditions to require additional environmental
protection or research if necessary to prevent the
vessel owner or operator who has an exemption under
this section from obtaining a significant economic
advantage over its competitors as a result of the
exemption.
An employee of the Department of Environmental Conservation
told Mr. Ray, that if one operator spent $100 thousand
dollars for a marine sanitation device that the other
operators could be assessed the same amount on their
exemption permit for research costs.
Representative John Davies concluded that the issue would be
that operators with an exemption would have an unfair
advantage. Mr. Ray disagreed with the provision.
Mr. Ray discussed page 4, line 18. He explained that their
marine sanitation devises work best when they are operated
24 hours a day. They are more likely to meet the standards
if they continue to operate while they are docked. He
maintained that vessels should be allowed to discharge if
they meet the standard. Some vessels do not have holding
tanks for graywater. This provision would ban some older
vessels from operating in Alaska.
Mr. Ray stressed that the problem is to address ships that
operate differently under one piece of legislation.
Representative Davies noted that subsection (e) exempts
small vessels from (d).
Representative Croft pointed out that subsection (e) is a
higher standard. Representative John Davies summarized that
the ships would be exempt if they meet all the state water
quality standards. Mr. Ray observed that the purpose is not
to resolve all the issues today. He emphasized that there
are more steps in the process and more can be solved once
the technical amendments are addressed.
RUSS HEATH, JUNEAU read testimony on behalf of AURAH LANDAU,
JUNEAU.
Conservative estimates tell us that tourism is growing
at 10% per year, which means that cruise ship tourism
can double in just 7-10 years. At EPA hearings this
fall to discuss cruise ship hearings, the room was
packed, with standing room only. Over 90% of the people
asked for better testing, monitoring, and compliance
enforcement, and for the right to know what is being
dumped into our waters. With so much public interest,
and the cruise industry a growing force in Alaska, it's
certainly appropriate for a cruise ship bill to have a
full round of hearings. I'm dismayed, that HB 260 was
introduced yesterday on the House floor, and had a
hearing scheduled within hours. The consequence has
been that this bill has been put together with very
little public comment and should not be raced through
the legislative process. Both HB 22 and HB 183 have
been developed in response to extensive public review
and agreements reached among state agencies, bill
sponsors, and cruise industry and cruise industry
representatives. Rushing HB 260 to hearing, and denying
hearings for HB 22 and HB 183, is an unacceptable end
run around the public process and the people of Alaska.
Because of the shortened review process, local
governments, fishing groups, local tourism operators,
and other groups of people who's lives and livelihoods
will be affected by this bill will not have a chance to
adequately review and testify about HB 260.
I have tow general concerns and several specific ones
that I would like to talk about. While the Governor's
bill and HB 22 both address air and water emissions,
and solid waste, HB 260 is only concerned with water.
HB 260 is not an adequate substitute for either HB 183
or HB 22. Two, HB 260 hands the Federal government
authority to set discharge levels, without some or
these levels even existing, yet in law. Regardless of
whether or not standards exist, I do not want folks in
DC or Seattle, who may know nothing about Alaska,
telling us what levels of emissions are ok for our
beaches, fishing grounds, herring spawning waters,
sport fish areas, and subsistence tidelands and other
waters. The State should not cede authority, in
exchange for voluntary testing and reporting by the
cruise lines.
Other specific points are:
• One, HB 183 contains a provision that if ships are out
of compliance with their permits, they aren't invited
back into our waters. According to HB 260, this
enforcement measure is substituted with voyage fees.
At first glance this sounds reasonable, but these fees
are very low, and are set to end in January 2004. This
is no incentive for cruise lines to upgrade their
systems to protect our waters.
• Secondly, HB 260 requires the cruise line to sample
treated sewage and graywater sampling only twice
during the season, once at the beginning and once at
the end. Twice is not enough! Without mid-season
sampling, there is not enough information available to
he able to identify and correct problems as they occur
during the months that the ships are afloat on Alaskan
waters.
• Three, records are only to be kept for three years.
Under federal reporting requirements for water and air
emissions, companies are required to keep records for
a minimum of five years. In some cases, the records
are to be kept and available for the life of the
facility. State laws should be consistent with federal
reporting requirements. With DEC having to request
records instead of regularly receiving them, it will
far more difficult for members of the general public
to know what's being put into our waters.
• The last point, it has been suggested that HB 260 goes
beyond any other state's laws. With no state laws on
the books, HB 260 goes beyond nothing. It only steps
back from the protective measures outlined by HB 22
and HB 183. With commercial fishing being Southeast's
largest private employer relying so heavily on our
rich marine waters, Alaska has much more to loose than
other states, and should rightly be on the forefront
of any efforts to adequately protect our resources.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|