Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/06/2013 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB29 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 29
"An Act relating to the regulation of wastewater
discharge from commercial passenger vessels in state
waters; and providing for an effective date."
LYNN KENT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, introduced herself and extended Commissioner
Hartig's apologies for being unable to attend the meeting.
She related that the commissioner was attending meetings in
Anchorage.
Ms. Kent stated that some of the Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC) authorities regarding
cruise ship wastewater discharges were not in SB 29 and
would continue to apply. She related that the bill required
cruise ships to comply with the same permitted discharge
requirements as other dischargers in Alaska. She pointed
out that the history of the bill started in 1999 and stated
that there was a time in history when cruise ships were not
doing a good job treating wastewater that was discharged
into Alaskan waters. In 2004, the vessels that were
discharging in Alaska had switched to advanced wastewater
treatment systems; the new treatment systems were the best
technology available at the time and produced a higher
quality effluent than most of the shore-based sewage
treatment facilities.
Ms. Kent relayed that in 2006, a ballot initiative was
passed that included provisions for taxing cruise ships and
putting ocean rangers on board; for the purposes of the
bill, the initiative required DEC to issue a permit to the
cruise ships that wanted to discharge wastewater in Alaska.
She related that Alaskan waters extended three miles off
shore and that beyond that distance, the waters were
federal. The ballot initiative required that the cruise
ship wastewater discharge meet Alaska's water quality
standards at the point of discharge. The Federal Clean
Water Act required states to protect the uses of water
bodies; uses included potable fresh water, the protection
of aquatic life in marine waters, contact recreation, and
other uses. The department set in regulation how much of a
particular pollutant could be in a water body, while still
protecting the uses of that water body. There was a process
for setting the water standards that relied on the latest
science. She remarked that there was a thorough process for
setting standards and that the legislation did not propose
to change the standards that applied to the protection of a
water body. She furthered that the standards were set to
relate to ambient water, such as oceans, rivers, and
streams. She concluded that the standards were used to
evaluate permits to discharge treated wastewater in the
water body; the department set permit limits to protect the
uses in the water body.
9:08:12 AM
Ms. Kent discussed the point of discharge requirement and
explained that it meant that cruise ships were required to
meet the standards to protect the uses of a water body in
the pipe before it was discharged in that water body; this
was in contrast to how DEC treated other dischargers in the
state in terms of permitting. Permits for all other
wastewater discharges from other types of facilities were
allowed to request approval for a mixing zone. She
explained that a mixing zone was authorization in a permit
that had gone through a public review and comment period;
furthermore, a mixing zone was an exception to the water
quality standards that allowed a discharger to discharge
into an area in a body of water at levels above the quality
standards as long as the standards were met at the edge of
the mixing zone. She expounded that the mixing zone
approach was approved by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and was used by all the other states. She
related that mixing zones recognized the difficulty of
meeting the water quality standards at the point of
discharge and provided a little relief through the
permitting process. She relayed that approval for a mixing
zone was not easy to obtain and that there were a number of
requirements in order to qualify. The department was
required to look at the cumulative effect of multiple
dischargers in the same water body.
Ms. Kent stated that another requirement was that the
effluent had to be treated to remove, reduce, and disperse
the pollutants using the most effective technology that was
economically feasible, and to do so at a minimum that was
consistent with statutory and regulatory treatment
requirements. Mixing zones could not be authorized if they
would create a public-health hazard that would preclude or
limit existing uses of the water body for water supply or
contact recreation. Mixing zones could not preclude or
limit established processing or fishing, could not result
in a reduction of fish or shellfish populations, etc. The
department's permits stated the conditions of discharge,
the limits to comply with the mixing zone, and the
monitoring requirements. She offered that the 2006 citizens
initiative had precluded DEC from issuing cruise ships
permits allowing mixing zones. She pointed out that the
department required the monitoring of cruise ships' treated
wastewater; however, cruise ships had been unable to meet
all of the water quality standards at the point of
discharge.
Ms. Kent related that in 2009, the legislature passed HB
134, which temporarily allowed cruise ships to have mixing
zones; the authority would sunset in December of 2015. She
stated that HB 134 had also convened a science advisory
panel that had 11 members. The panel's mission was to
examine the wastewater treatment systems that were
currently on board cruise ships and the level of effluent
quality achieved by the advanced wastewater systems. The
panel looked at whether there were new and emergent
technologies that could do a better job with wastewater
treatment and also looked at the engineering and economic
feasibility of making improvements to the effluent quality.
She concluded that the panel's main mission was to look at
treatment methods that would result in cruise ships meeting
the water quality standards at the point of discharge. She
pointed out that the science advisory panel had met 14 or
15 times and the meetings were open to the public; they had
reviewed a tremendous amount of data and looked at issues
and systems onboard vessels.
Ms. Kent stated that the panel had found that the cruise
ships meet all the standards at the point of discharge with
the exception of four parameters; ammonia and three
dissolved metals, including copper, nickel, and zinc were
not being met. The panel had found that the current
advanced wastewater treatment systems onboard cruise ships
were the most effective and proven treatment systems that
were available. She discussed that there were a variety of
manufacturers of the treatment systems and that as a
result, there was some variation in the effluent quality
from ship to ship. She continued that the science advisory
panel had not found any "silver bullet" treatment method
that would allow cruise ships to meet the water quality
standards at the point of discharge for the remaining four
parameters. She added that the panel had found that given
the current quality of effluent and the large dilution
factors in the ocean, there would be very little, if any,
demonstrable environmental benefit in requiring cruise
ships to adopt potential additional treatment methods. She
related that the panel had questioned whether smaller
incremental improvements would still be economical when all
four water standards would continue to be unmet at the
point of discharge. She pointed out that DEC had other
authorities to dictate when, where, how, and what cruise
ships could discharge. Under the legislation, all of DEC's
water standards and permitting requirements would remain in
place, as well as DEC's ability to look at potential future
technologies.
9:15:12 AM
Ms. Kent stated that the science advisory panel released a
preliminary report to the legislature in January of the
current year and that a final report would be due January
of 2015. She communicated that the panel's report was not a
draft report, but was a complete and thorough evaluation of
existing, new, and emerging treatment systems; DEC had
concurred with the panel's report. She stated that SB 29
would remove the point of discharge requirement in order to
allow the cruise ships to apply for a mixing zone and be
treated like other dischargers in Alaska; however, cruise
ships would be statutorily required to continue to use an
advanced wastewater treatment system if they wanted to meet
the threshold to apply for a mixing zone. She stated that
the bill removed a requirement that was impossible for
cruise ships to meet currently.
Ms. Kent relayed that the bill gave DEC guidance on what
advanced wastewater treatment systems were and allowed it
to consider an application for a mixing zone for system
that treated to the same quality as the advanced wastewater
treatment systems. She noted that the bill pertained to
small commercial passenger vessels in addition to larger
cruise ships. She pointed out that the bill continued an
option that was established by the legislature in 2009 for
the small cruise ships to operate under alternative terms
and conditions; these small ships were not required to have
advanced wastewater treatment systems or meet the point of
discharge requirements. She explained that it would be
extremely difficult for the smaller vessels with limited
space to install the advanced treatment systems. The
alternative terms also allowed the smaller cruise ships to
have their best management plans approved for five-year
terms rather than three-year terms.
Ms. Kent stated that SB 29 eliminated a law that required
that a subsequent permit could not be less stringent than
the previous one. She explained that the state had an anti-
backsliding provision in law for all of DEC's other
permittees that allowed for certain exceptions; the problem
with the anti-backsliding provision in the cruise ship law
was that there were no exceptions. She explained that
currently, DEC would be unable to approve a plan for a
cruise ship to reconfigure its wastewater treatment
facilities in a way that treated one parameter not as well
in exchange for treating three or four others significantly
better. She provided another example of how the anti-
backsliding provision could restrict DEC's options. The
bill included a transition provision that allowed the
current general permit to be in effect until December of
2015 and allowed a seamless transition from the old law to
the new law. The legislation called for the science
advisory panel's sunset, technology conferences, and the
final report to the legislature. The bill did not change
existing statutes that allowed the state to continue
looking at technology improvements in the future and did
not change the requirement to use new technologies when
they became available. She offered that the legislation was
consistent with how DEC viewed wastewater discharges and
shared that the department regulated based on the effects
to water quality rather than who the dischargers were. She
added that the bill would be consistent with how the
department permitted other wastewater dischargers.
9:19:48 AM
Ms. Kent discussed the department's zero fiscal note and
communicated that the changes to the permitting regime
would have no fiscal impact on the department. The
department's operating budget for cruise ship permitting
and water quality work was paid for by a legislative
appropriation from the Commercial Passenger Environmental
Compliance Fund, which was funded by cruise ship passenger
fees. She mentioned that DEC had not sought additional
funding when the advisory panel was created in 2009. She
concluded that the department had been able to fund the
panel's work within the existing budget and it was looking
forward to returning to work that had been deferred for the
last few years.
Senator Dunleavy inquired if the Alaska Ferry System was
held to same standard, a higher standard, or a lower
standard as cruise ships. Ms. Kent responded that there
were five cruise ships in Alaska that were considered to be
small commercial passenger vessels and that these smaller
ships operated under best management practices and
alternative terms and conditions.
Senator Dunleavy restated the question and asked if the
ferry system was held to a higher, lower, or the same
standard as the cruise ships that were referenced in the
bill. Ms. Kent responded that she had misspoken and that
there were five state ferries that were considered small
commercial passenger vessels and that these ferries were
regulated under the same terms and conditions as other
small commercial passenger vessels.
Senator Dunleavy reiterated the question. Ms. Kent replied
that the five ferries were held to the same standard as all
other small commercial passenger vessels; the ferries would
have to submit a plan for alternative terms and conditions,
as well as best management practices.
Senator Olson inquired if the Alaska Marine Highway
System's ferries were held to the same standard as the
cruise ships that had greater than 250 berths. Ms. Kent
responded that the larger vessels were those that had 250,
or more, lower berths; smaller vessels were those that had
249 lower berths or less. The large commercial vessels had
a permit requirement and the point of discharge
requirement. She related that the small commercial
passenger vessels had to comply with the same requirements
as the other small commercial passenger vessels; small
commercial passenger vessels were not currently required to
meet the water quality standards like the large vessels.
Senator Olson restated Ms. Kent's response and offered that
the ferries were held to the same standard. Ms. Kent
responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Kent interjected that the smaller commercial passenger
vessels currently had relief from the point of discharge
requirement. The current law removed that relief for the
larger and smaller vessels at the end of 2015; at this
time, all cruise ships would have to meet water quality
standards at the point of discharge.
9:24:28 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked how many communities applied
for a discharge permit onshore. Ms. Kent replied that she
had asked her staff the question, but that it was not easy
to discern the difference between facilities that
discharged in fresh water versus marine water. She added
that there were over 100 communities that discharged into
marine waters.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if Anchorage discharged to
marine waters. Ms. Kent responded in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Juneau discharged into
fresh water. Ms. Kent replied that the Juneau-Douglas plant
discharged into marine waters.
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried if the discharge permit for
Juneau had a higher or lower standard than the current law
for cruise ships in terms of the amount of zinc, nickel,
ammonia, or copper that was allowed. Ms. Kent replied that
there were unique circumstances for some of the domestic
wastewater dischargers in Alaska's marine waters. She
believed that there were seven communities that were
authorized to discharge with only "primary treatment,"
which was a low level of treatment. All other marine
dischargers were required to treat to "secondary
treatment," which was a higher level of treatment.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, DIRECTOR, WATER DIVISION, DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, stated that she could not
speak specifically to limits in individual permits;
however, in general, many of the domestic wastewater
treatment facilities had limits; often, they did not have
limits for the metals that were limited in the cruise ship
permits. The limits were set based on a "reasonable
potential to exceed water quality standards or water
quality criteria." She added that when domestic wastewater
facilities did have limits, they were less stringent than
the cruise ship general permit limits. She pointed out that
onshore domestic wastewater treatment facilities were
limited for other constituents, but not often the same ones
as the cruise ships.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the onshore facilities
could discharge zinc, nickel, ammonia, and copper at a
higher level than the cruise ships currently could. Ms.
Hale responded that sometimes that was the case.
Vice-Chair Fairclough acknowledged that it was difficult
and noted that she did not mean to "split hairs." She
observed that the state was making a decision based on
economics, the ability of some communities to achieve
compliance, and an effort to continuously raise the water
quality standards. She explained that she was trying to
understand, specifically in Southeast waters, the coastal
communities that were "making that choice"; furthermore,
she wanted to understand the economics involved in
attaining less discharge into the water. She noted that the
industry was asking for the same economic consideration
that the coastal communities had. She wondered if it was
acceptable for Haines not to improve its system to a higher
level and noted that there would be large fiscal
consequences to improving the system in Anchorage; she
wanted to understand that "those communities" were making
the same determinations through a public process.
9:29:15 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if there was discharge in
the Haines and Ketchikan areas into marine waters and
further queried if the two communities had mixing zones.
Ms. Kent replied that the wastewater dischargers from the
domestic facilities, with maybe one exception, had
permitted mixing zones; the permits went through a five-
year review that included public comments and review. She
stated that Vice-Chair Fairclough raised a good point and
that it was very expensive for a community to design,
construct, and operate wastewater treatment facilities. She
concluded that the facilities did a good job within their
means and that DEC attempted to push them at each permit
cycle to do better.
Vice-Chair Fairclough mentioned that she had a biologist
working on her staff and noted that fish processing
expelled ammonia. She inquired if fish processors were
required to comply with mixing zone permits when they were
discharging into marine waters. Ms. Kent responded that in
many cases, processors were required to have a mixing zone
permit primarily for the discharge of the seafood waste,
which needed to be ground up before it was discharged.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if Ms. Kent was referring to
primary treatment rather than secondary. Ms. Kent replied
that the primary and secondary treatment requirements only
applied to domestic wastewater; seafood processors were
considered an industrial operation with an industrial
discharge. She concluded that seafood processors must have
a permit for their discharge from processing activities and
that the permits almost always included a mixing zone.
Senator Hoffman noted that Section 1 of the bill removed
the more stringent requirements for discharge. He observed
that cruise ships would have to apply for the mixing zones
and inquired if DEC had considered moving those mixing
zones. He further queried what the status of the mixing
zones would be if the more stringent requirements for
discharge were removed and if the department anticipated
that mixing zones would remain the same. Ms. Kent responded
that the current law gave temporary relief to cruise ships
for meeting all the water quality standards at the point of
discharge. She stated that in the current permit, cruise
ships did have the equivalent of a mixing zone. She offered
that future permits, in almost all circumstances, were as
stringent as or more stringent than the previous permit.
She stated that on any given year, there were 27 or 28
cruise ships coming into Alaska and that only 17 or 18 of
the ships were permitted to discharge in the state's
waters; only 7 of those were permitted to discharge while
in port. She explained that a permit for a cruise ship to
discharge in port had more stringent effluent limits than
the limits for discharging while the ships were underway.
The department had the ability to place a multitude of
controls on when, where, what, and how the cruise ships
could discharge.
9:33:17 AM
Senator Hoffman noted the removal of the stringent
requirements and inquired if the mixing zones would be
moved by the department when the zones applied or if there
would be no change in those locations. Ms. Kent replied
that every time a permit cycle was done, the permits went
through a public review and comment period and that the
public often commented on the specifics of discharges. She
could not guarantee that the mixing zones would not change,
but offered that she could characterize the zones in the
current permit; when a vessel was underway at 6 knots or
more, there was a 50,000 to 1 dilution. She furthered that
when a discharge occurred at the levels that were specified
under the current permit, the water quality standards were
met within seconds of discharge and concluded that there
was not a trail of pollution behind the cruise ships. She
furthered that for vessels that discharged in port, there
were more stringent effluent limits; the water quality for
these vessels were met within meters of the discharge
point.
Senator Hoffman wondered if the department felt that the
mixing zones should be further addressed in the legislation
given the removal of the stringent requirements. Ms. Kent
responded that she did not believe so and that DEC had all
the necessary authority to ensure the protection of water
quality.
Senator Dunleavy pointed to Ms. Kent's testimony that the
bill removed a requirement that was impossible to meet. He
inquired if the requirement was impossible to meet because
the technology did not exist, or whether it was something
inherent to the cruise industry. Ms. Kent replied that a
previous science panel, a conference by DEC, and the
current science panel had all arrived at the conclusion
that the advanced wastewater systems were the best
available; although there were certain things that could be
done in a laboratory or other settings, there were
currently no other treatment systems that could be
installed on cruise ships that would allow them to meet the
existing water quality standards at the point of discharge.
Senator Olson noted that the point of discharge requirement
was the key to the discussion and was one of the
priorities. He asked what kinds of materials the cruise
ships were discharging. He queried if the discharges were
raw sewage or grey water and wondered how the discharges
were treated. He referenced an earlier comment by Vice-
Chair Fairclough and wondered how the state knew that the
chemicals used in the treatment process were not harming
the environment.
Ms. Kent replied that the permit only allowed cruise ships
to discharge treated wastewater that had been through the
advanced wastewater system. She stated that permit limits
were set by the type of treatment system that the vessel
had. She reiterated that there were different manufactures
of the advanced wastewater treatment systems and that each
had a slight difference in the level of success; however,
all the advanced wastewater treatment systems treated to a
very high standard. She shared that the requirements became
significantly less stringent in waters outside of the
state's jurisdiction; these waters were managed under the
federal regime and only required a Type II marine
sanitation device. She explained that a Type 2 marine
sanitation device basically consisted of a macerator and
chlorination. She responded to the last question and stated
that the permit did include a limit for chlorine for the
vessels that discharged in Alaska.
9:37:38 AM
Senator Olson inquired how the state verified what the
cruise ships were discharging and wondered if samples were
taken. Ms. Kent responded that the permit included
significant number of monitoring requirements and that
cruise ships had to take their first samples within ten
days of their first visit to Alaska each year;
additionally, there were requirements for monitoring some
things daily, while others were monitored twice per season.
She pointed out that ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc were
monitored twice per month.
Senator Olson surmised that DEC had been involved in the
formulation of the bill and inquired it felt that
commercial fishermen, subsistence and personal use
gatherers, or the mariculture industry should be concerned
with the relief the legislation would give to cruise ships.
Ms. Kent did not believe they should be concerned and noted
that the water quality standards were designed to protect
marine life in the water body. Given the dilution that
occurred and the high quality of the discharge, she did not
think there was a concern.
Senator Olson wondered if the mixing zone locations would
be published in order to inform the public as to where they
were. Ms. Kent replied that the mixing zones for cruise
ships that were underway would be limited by the distance
from shore and how fast the cruise ship was moving. She
related that the zone could not be drawn on a map because
they were right next to ships, even when the ship was
moving. Senator Olson interjected that the assertion was
based on the assumption that a ship was traveling 6 knots.
Ms. Kent responded in the affirmative and relayed that DEC
required the ships to be moving a certain speed to be able
to discharge. For vessels that were approved to discharge
in a port, the mixing zone was within meters of the vessel.
She stated that in order to have overlapping mixing zones
in port, two of the seven approved port dischargers would
have to be in same location at the same time and would have
to be docked within meters of each other. She concluded
that cruise ships did not dock within meters of each other.
Senator Olson stated that he had been a commercial
fisherman and offered that fisherman were always concerned
with what was being put into the water. He asked if DEC had
considered establishing reasonable "no-discharge zones," so
that fisherman could have a reasonable assurance that
certain areas were free of discharges. Ms. Kent replied
that DEC had done that sort of thing through the permitting
process and had even done so for the small commercial
passenger vessels.
Senator Olson inquired when the sunset was for the science
advisory panel and wondered what the reason for the sunset
was, given that there was an ongoing report that was not
due until 2015. Ms. Kent responded that science advisory
panel was due to sunset at the end of 2015 and that the
panel had already conducted a very thorough look at the
technologies that were available; the current science panel
had reconfirmed the findings of the previous panel and the
DEC conference on cruise ship wastewater technologies. She
shared that the department was unsure what the current
science advisory panel would do over the next three years,
particularly because the department retained the authority
to conduct additional technology conferences and to examine
technology "at least" with every permit cycle.
Senator Olson commented that the bill seemed premature,
given that the final report was not coming out until 2015
and inquired why the legislation was being heard before a
final report had come out. He noted that the legislature
only had a draft and did not even have a preliminary
report. Ms. Kent replied that the science advisory panel
had produced a preliminary report that was not a draft
report; furthermore, the report had many previous drafts
and was a complete final preliminary report. She stated
that the preliminary report contained everything the panel
knew about the current state of technology for cruise ships
and also projected that there would not be any technologies
in the near future that would allow cruise ships to meet
all the water quality standards at the point of discharge.
She concluded that there was no one technology or
combination of technologies that would satisfy the last
four parameters.
9:43:58 AM
Senator Olson stated that an inadvertent discharge that was
too close to shore was a "nightmare" and mentioned the
running aground of the Costa Concordia. He inquired if the
legislation addressed a situation like the Costa Concordia
grounding. Ms. Kent replied that the existing law, which
did not change under the bill, provided an exemption for
discharges that were made to protect life and safety at
sea. She opined that if the state had an accident like the
Costa Concordia, untreated sewage in the water would
probably be the "least of our worries"; the department
would be more concerned about human lives and oil spills.
She added that DEC had an entire spill prevention and
response division.
Senator Olson acknowledged that life and health was a
concern, but was worried that diseases could be held in
wastewater holding tanks. He thought there should be
concern regarding what people in coastal areas would be
encountering in the event of an accident, particularly
regarding close-proximity contact recreation or fish
harvesting. Ms. Kent replied that DEC could not stop a
release, but that the department had zero tolerance for
contamination of seafood. She relayed by example that if
there were shellfish beds in proximity to a discharge from
an accident such as the Costa Concordia, the department
would probably shut down the consumption of seafood from
that area for a period of time.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that the meeting was being held for
inquiries and encouraged committee members to ask
questions.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that DEC had stated that the
technology did not currently exist to meet the standards on
cruise ships and observed that the department did not see a
reason for the science advisory panel to continue. He
pointed out that technology changed constantly and inquired
if the department was monitoring the latest technology. He
added that there could be a time in the near future when
technology would reach the point where the higher water
quality standards were achievable. He thought that everyone
wanted the standard to be as high as possible for Alaska's
water and inquired if the department could provide some
assurance regarding how new technologies were monitored.
Ms. Kent replied that there were a couple of ways that DEC
monitored technology and several places where the
department had monitoring authority. She pointed out that
the regulations specified that anyone who was applying for
a mixing permit was required to use the most
technologically effective and economically feasible
treatment methods, which had to be consistent with any
state and federal laws pertaining to that particular type
of discharge. The department had other statutory
authorities that allowed it to examine and evaluate
technologies. She pointed out that the department did not
regulate what types of treatment systems someone used, but
regulated what came out of the end of the pipe. She
furthered that as there were better treatment methods
available, DEC could tighten the effluent limits on a
permit.
9:49:10 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if DEC worked with states to
determine the best technology and wondered how Alaska's
standards compared to other state's standards for cruise
ships. Ms. Kent responded that the department did examine
what other states were doing and that currently Alaska had
the only cruise ship program in the world that it was aware
of. She added that the science advisory panel had examined
the issue from a technology perspective instead of a
standards perspective.
Co-Chair Meyer asked about the science advisory panel's
memberships and wondered whether its members were
scientists. Ms. Kent replied that the panel's members were
required by law to have experience in wastewater discharge;
there were specific requirements that the panel must have a
representative of coastal community domestic wastewater
management, a representative of the cruise ship industry, a
representative of the commercial fishing industry, and a
non-governmental organization with an interest in water
quality matters. She relayed that the panel had expertise
in wastewater plant design and operation, wastewater
engineering and science, ship engineering design and
construction, environmental science, shipping economy, and
fisheries and environmental policy. She detailed that the
panel imported members from Europe who had a significant
amount of experience with the design of ships and the
design of the wastewater treatment systems to go onboard
the vessels.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the panel's members had PhDs.
Ms. Kent responded that there were four or five PhDs on the
panel. She furthered that there was a good variety of
expertise on the panel.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if the fishing industry was
represented on the panel. Ms. Kent responded in the
affirmative.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired how the ocean ranger program
had been implemented and how many ocean rangers were
currently monitoring discharges on cruise ships. Ms. Kent
responded that the ocean rangers were a part of the
citizens initiative that passed in 2006, which required a
Coast Guard licensed marine engineer to be onboard all
large cruise ships entering Alaskan waters; the marine
engineer's purpose was to monitor the cruise ship's
compliance with state and federal environmental sanitation
and waste laws. She added that the marine engineer did not
have any enforcement authority, but produced a daily report
for DEC; furthermore, the engineer did not conduct any
actual monitoring, but looked at the vessel's logs and
record books to see where the discharges occurred. She
noted that the marine engineers were funded by a passenger
head tax. She concluded that in 2012, DEC had ocean rangers
onboard about 88 percent of the passenger days in Alaska.
She concluded that the ocean ranger coverage was at a high
level and that DEC did not have similar coverage for any
other industry.
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed out that the state was
ramping up a training program to make sure that ocean
rangers would be on each vessel. She inquired if the goal
was to have ocean rangers on every vessel. Ms. Kent replied
that DEC wanted all the ocean rangers to be Alaskans and
relayed that the department had a lot of challenges finding
a sufficient number of applicants with the requisite
training and certification. She relayed that there was also
a challenge surrounding the issue of a seasonal job versus
a year-round job and explained that even though there were
a lot of marine engineers in Alaska, they were mostly fully
employed. She stated that there were 21 ocean rangers the
prior year, 7 of which were Alaskans. She concluded that
the department conducted advertising and encouraged
Alaskans to apply.
9:54:21 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the ocean rangers were
assigned to different vessels or one particular route and
crew. She commented that too much familiarity between the
rangers and the vessel's crew might lead the rangers to
complacency or unwillingness to report as aggressively as
they should. Ms. Kent responded that with 21 ocean rangers
and 28 vessels there had to be some rotation, but she was
unsure how often the rotation occurred or how many vessels
in a given year that an ocean ranger would be on in a given
year.
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested a visual of how the state
tested mixing zones for a vessel that was underway. Ms.
Kent replied that mixing zones for a vessel that was
underway were very different from a fixed mixing zone. She
explained that for fixed mixing zones, the department could
monitor the water quality standards in the ocean at the
edge of the permitted mixing zone in order to ensure that
requirements and water quality standards were met. For
vessels that were underway, the department relied on
studies that examined the level of dilution that occurred
in the water immediately next to the discharge point; those
studies indicated that there was at least a 50,000 to 1
dilution that occurred within seconds of the discharge. She
concluded that the discharge would probably be undetectable
after a few seconds had passed.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired if the discharge would be
clear or grey water. Ms. Kent responded that the terms
"grey water" and "black water" referred to the source of
wastewater; grey water came from the galley, showers, and
laundry, while black water came from toilets. She shared
that once wastewater was treated through an advanced
wastewater treatment system, it became clear.
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried if there was a reason that
the state was not requiring cruise ships to discharge into
land based facilities. Ms. Kent replied that there were
some vessels that currently discharged into land-based
facilities and that those vessels did not need a permit
from DEC to do so; however, there were technical challenges
associated with discharging into shore based facilities.
Vice-Chair Fairclough observed that there were areas where
channels converged or "donut holes," which were outside of
the 3-mile limit and allowed the dumping of effluent. She
pointed out that although the donut holes were outside of
the 3-mile limit, they were still inside of coastal
communities' concerns. She inquired if SB 29 eliminated the
donut holes that were a concern to some fisherman. Ms. Kent
replied that the donut holes had been eliminated for the
purposes of a state permit by DEC's definition of waters
that were covered. She further explained that if someone
wanted to discharge into a donut hole, DEC required a
permit to do so.
9:58:41 AM
Senator Olson requested a comment on why a member of the
science advisory panel had been removed. Ms. Kent responded
that there was a candidate that the administration had
initially wanted to place on the panel, but that there had
been concerns with that individual's strong advocacy role
in the citizens initiative; the concerns surrounded whether
or not the individual would contribute to the panel or
detract from the deliberations. She stated that the science
advisory panel's mission was to look at wastewater
treatment technologies and that although there were members
who had an interest in water quality, the main focus of the
work was to find out if there were existing technologies
that could do a better job.
Senator Hoffman noted that Section 7 of the bill provided
for an immediate effective date and inquired if it gave the
department any implementation concerns versus having a
fixed date. Ms. Kent replied that the current permit
expired in early April, but that the first cruise ship
needing coverage would arrive near the end of April. She
explained that if the bill passed, the effective date would
allow DEC to extend the current permit without having a
time crunch.
Senator Hoffman wondered why the effective date was not
April 1. Ms. Kent responded that the legislature could make
changes to the effective date. Senator Hoffman interjected
that he was inquiring what DEC's position was regarding the
legislation having an immediate effective date versus a
fixed effective date. Ms. Kent replied that the department
had not considered alternatives to the immediate effective
date, but that it certainly could.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that there were different standards
for Alaska's ferries that carried fewer than 250 passengers
than there were for the cruise ships that carried more than
250 passengers. He inquired if the standards were more
stringent for vessels that carried more passengers. Ms.
Kent stated that the law made a distinction between large
and small commercial passenger vessels and that five of the
state ferries were considered small commercial passenger
vessels. She explained that the both the small and large
commercial passenger vessels had relief under the current
law from meeting the water quality standards at the point
of discharge requirement; without the legislation, the
point of discharge requirement would take effect for the
2016 cruise ship season for both large and small vessels.
10:03:15 AM
Co-Chair Meyer surmised that the large state ferries were
not held to the standard as the cruise ships, but would be
held to the same standard by 2015. Ms. Kent explained that
currently, only the large commercial passenger vessels were
required to have a permit from DEC and that the small
vessels, including the five ferries, had to submit a plan
for alternative terms and conditions and comply with the
plan; all the vessels would all have to meet the point of
discharge requirement and would need a permit in 2015.
Senator Olson restated that the state ferries were under
the same standards as small vessels because they had less
than 250 berths and that cruise ships that had over 250
berths were held to a stricter standard for wastewater
discharges. Ms. Kent responded that Senator Olson was
correct "for right now."
Co-Chair Meyer inquired if monitoring wastewater discharge
was part an ocean ranger's job. Ms. Kent replied that the
ocean rangers did look at activities that were occurring
onboard the vessel for compliance with state and federal
requirements. She offered that the term "monitor" probably
meant one thing to DEC and something else to other people;
DEC considered monitoring to generally mean taking a sample
and sending it into a laboratory. She explained that ocean
rangers monitored in the sense that they were onboard and
were watching the activities of the vessel while it was in
Alaskan waters. She furthered that the ocean rangers were
examining the ship's logbooks for when it was discharging
or not discharging, when the valves were opened, or if
there were any upsets to the system. She offered that the
ocean rangers served an "eyes and ears" function on cruise
ships. She added that the legislation did not make any
changes to the ocean ranger program.
Co-Chair Meyer offered that cruise ships were currently
held to a higher standard than any other vessels in the
state and that the higher standard was impossible to meet
with the current technology. He offered that the purpose of
the bill was to set a standard that cruise ships were able
to meet with the current technology and inquired if this
was the correct interpretation of the bill's intent. Ms.
Kent replied in affirmative.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed the following meeting's agenda.
10:07:30 AM
SB 29 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:07:48 AM