Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2013 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB29 | |
Who's Keeping the Lights and Heat On? Problems and Solutions | |
Presentation by Agdc | |
Presentation: Cingsa, Richard Gentges | |
Presentation: Fairbanks Lng Trucking Option | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 29-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 29 to be up for consideration. 3:31:44 PM ANDY ROGERS, Deputy Director, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, Juneau, Alaska, supported SB 29. He said it has the full support of the Alaska Chamber membership and is a legislative priority for them. He said the cruise ship industry in general touches on a couple of their other positions: advocating sound science as opposed to precautionary method for legislation and regulation. MR. ROGERS said that the Science Advisory Panel found that waste water discharges from cruise ships currently meet a higher standard than most if not all of Alaska Municipalities. This industry has large economic impacts throughout the state including the Interior; some land-based businesses that rely on them are Alaska Amphibian Tours in Ketchikan, Alaskan Brewing in Juneau, and Pike's Landing and Hot Licks Ice Cream in Fairbanks. Members as far as Nome - like Bering Air and Nome Adventure Tours - benefit from guests coming to the state by sea. 3:35:01 PM BOB JANES, representing himself, Juneau, Alaska supported SB 29 and said he makes his living off the cruise industry as a tour operator. He is not a scientist, but it is all about science. He urged them to look to the Science Advisory Panel report for making policy decisions. 3:37:30 PM KARLA HART, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Juneau, Alaska, didn't support SB 29 and said the rush on this bill did not seem warranted or appropriate. SB 29 calls for sunseting the panel before its work is done, which she opposed. The final report from the Science Advisory Panel is not out yet and she hoped it would get some review and peer discussion. She said the Governor's urgency was artificially created around the summer timeframe for issuing the permit and quick action would betray the voters of Alaska who voted for this higher standard of clean water. MS. HART said the volume and size of the ships warrant special consideration as most of them are larger than most communities in Alaska, and cumulatively they represent a large population increase. Their pollution is not small scale. If an Alaskan community doesn't meet discharge standards, it's in their front yard; they know where it comes from and who is responsible and they have to clean it up. On the other hand, ships discharge anywhere, so remote areas you might go to for subsistence harvest or commercial fishing that you might think are clean because they are far away from any apparent discharge could actually be getting a pretty substantial burden over time. A lot of the pollution is from heavy metals that bio-accumulate over time, and it is not known what they do to people or the environment. 3:40:23 PM MS. HART stated the Chamber representative urged action based on sound science rather than a precautionary principle, but everyone knows that regulations, including Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, are a blend of science and politics with industry input. They do know now that the impacts of very small amounts of toxics, undetectable under technologies of a few years ago, have really significant impacts on people. So, she asked them to slow down; the cruise industry will survive another year and Alaskans will appreciate the chance for good consideration. 3:41:03 PM GUY ARCHIBALD, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC), Juneau, Alaska, opposed SB 29, but if it passes urged not sunseting the Science Advisory Panel. He said he is a chemist and because SB 29 is based on the Science Advisory Panel report, he wanted to comment, in particular, on the comparison in it of copper loads with the loading from natural rivers and the comparison of cruise ships to land-based treatment facilities, mixing zones and some treatment options that were examined. MR. ARCHIBALD explained that comparing cruise ship waste water loadings with a natural source such as the Mendenhall River is really not sound science for a number of reasons. He explained that the form of the element matters; whether it's in its total form or its dissolved form, and the report did not make that distinction. He could eat a handful of copper pennies and have no ill effects, but if he takes that same amount of copper and dissolves it into water and drinks it, it would probably kill him. So, the form matters. He said the type of oxidative state also matters and explained that these heavy metals come in various oxidative states; some are absorbed by life and some are not. A human body will absorb iron in the ferrous state, but not in the ferric state, yet the science report doesn't make that distinction. MR. ARCHIBALD said the source of the contamination matters. They know the Copper River has a high level of copper in it that often exceeds the water quality criteria for aquatic life, but those fish have had thousands of years and hundreds of generations to adapt to that level of copper in the water. Science tells them that even a small increase in the amount of copper is still detrimental to fish that are even adapted to high levels of copper in the water. And at the final level, the argument that cruise ships only contribute a fraction of the copper in the Mendenhall River is a false comparison; it is somewhat the same logic his teenagers use: everybody is doing it; why can't I? He asked if SB 29 passes that the science panel not be sunseted, but that the report be finalized and published for peer review, which is the norm for scientific reports. He further asked that the end of high compliance with water quality criteria be retained as an incentive for the industry to do a better job as land-based treatment systems have done. 3:44:58 PM CHIP THOMA, President, Responsible Cruising in Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, opposed advancing SB 29. His preference was that all large cruise ships coming to Alaska deposit their waste in federal waters.{ Luckily, they are coming to a point with the size and configuration of these ships that they are able to hold their waste for five days or more during which time they transit Southeast Alaska. MR. THOMA also stated that all ships are now being built with flex-pipe, which does not have copper or any metals in it. Once those ships - primarily run by Princess Cruise Lines - are phased out, the ships will be either clean or practically clean, depositing waste in the Gulf of Alaska or at the Juneau treatment plant, which Princes does right now. All those aspects are coming to a good conclusion in the long run. In the short run, these standards should be retained and "just give these guys a few more years of extension." Every year technological advances in waste water treatment were being made. The other day, Mr. Thoma said had a question about the quality of the bunker water, so he called the water superintendents of the three major bunker towns - Ketchikan, Juneau and Skagway - and asked the copper count in the bunker water being delivered to the cruise ships(after the water is treated). Ketchikan had an interesting story. The Ketchikan superintendent said he had a high copper count; 17 parts per billion but he had 70 parts per billion of lead. So, he went down to the dock and looked and saw the brand new metal ball valve they had just bought (made in India). He took that ball valve off and replaced it with a plastic one and did a new test after letting the water settle for eight hours, and copper came back at 2 parts per billion and .6 percent billion for lead. The source of the high count before was obviously from the ball valve. Then Mr. Thoma said he talked to the Skagway superintendent who had tested the municipal docks and found them below the average. The one private dock was above average and it was all because of the ball valves. In summary he said that a lot basic stuff can be done and it being done between the loading of the water on and changing the copper pipes. Once these ships are gone, this problem is over. But don't give them an exemption now! 3:49:07 PM JOHN KIMMEL, Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska, Ketchikan, Alaska, supported SB 29, because holding cruise ships to the same standard as everyone else is fair. The Legislature came up with the Science Advisory Panel who studied it for three years; it's time to listen to their recommendations and move on. It's about jobs as well; his family depends on the income from those jobs. 3:50:58 PM JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, representing himself and his family, Petersburg, Alaska, opposed SB 29. His family had fished in Southeast Alaska for 35 years and had watched the development of both the sport fish and cruise ship industries. His children are now fishermen and worked their way through college on fishing boats. His neighbor's son just bought a new boat and permit; Petersburg is a fishing town as are many towns in Southeast Alaska. This bill is bad for Alaska's fishing industry; its whole claim to clean, pristine waters has to have a foundation in reality, in science and in public perception. MR. SEBASTIAN related that ocean acidification was taking place due to air-borne carbon pollution settling on the ocean in amounts that change the water's PH factor. Now SB 29 wants to add more pollution to it to compound this already existing problem. If the cruise ship industry that makes billions of dollars in profit every year is unwilling to uphold and protect our clean pristine Alaskan waters, then they really have no place here and are not welcome. He said SB 29 is "a slap in the face to thousands of Alaskan fishing families and the fishing industry in general." He summarized that every year technological advances are being made and they are already on their way to achieving a good balance with an industry that could be more neutral than it is now in terms of discharges and water quality. 3:54:49 PM MICHELLE RIDGEWAY, representing herself, Auke Bay, Alaska, said she is a member of the Alaska Cruise Ship Waste Water Science Advisory Panel and did not support SB 29 in its current form. She believed that the implications of introducing more ship discharge at the volume of some 800 cubic meters per day per ship (best estimate) times 20 ships times 180 per years is an unacceptable level of introducing contaminants into our ecosystem. Quite frankly she thought they would be appalled by the long-term degradation of the state's marine ecosystem if the bill was allowed to go forward in its current form. She said SB 29 calls for establishing mixing zones for moving vessels, but pleaded with them to avoid going down that path. She believed it would be exceedingly difficult to get Alaskans to agree where it would be acceptable to discharge water that contains copper, zinc, nickel and ammonia at levels that are known to be acutely and chronically toxic to marine life. How would areas for subsistence harvests be avoided or some of the established state water parks or areas that are critical for the dive fisheries or commercial and sport fisheries, tourism that operate in clean water? "Clean water is our brand; wild and free is a mantra in Alaska. Now is the time to continue to protect that," she said. She added that a number of studies demonstrate clearly that metals at very low levels, especially copper, are toxic to marine life - and it is described in DEC records. They disfigure herring embryos at very low levels; salmon smolts and adults lose their sense of smell, can't find their way home and are subject to much higher levels of predation, not to mention the fact that heavy metals bio-accumulate in the food web; ingesting them impacts our immune system as well as that of marine mammals. She urged them to look a little harder for a solution that is based on solid technology that does exist and good solid science that exists, as well. 3:59:03 PM DAVE WETZEL, owner, Admiralty Environmental, Juneau, Alaska, said he is an independent company that has managed the sampling, monitoring and testing of large and small cruise ships in Southeast Alaska since 2000. He supported SB 29 as a sound and practical solution to approach cruise ship monitoring. SB 29 applies Alaska water quality standards consistently for all people who discharge in Alaska, whether they are a waste water treatment plant, a mining company or a cruise ship. They aren't really looking at scaling back any of Alaska's water quality regulations that are not intended to be applied at the point of discharge. He had seen all of the major types of treatment systems that were developed for operation in Alaska and had sampled and reviewed the results from them all. These are the best systems that are available right now; the military is actually looking at using some of them. He observed a remarkable consistency between the different types of advanced waste water treatment systems in that they all treat water to basically the same quality between different ships of the same system and the same ship from year to year. So, it's really only sensible to apply the same strategy for discharges from land-based plants to ships at sea. The intent of the Alaska water quality standards is to establish limits for the quality of the water body, itself; it's not a point of discharge standard. MR. WETZEL asked them to consider that cruise ship discharges are much a small volume than from land-based plants. And his experience in dealing with the vessel owners is that they are all very committed to operating their systems properly and in an optimal manner. They are also very interested in meeting regulations and are involved on a daily basis in how their results are coming out. He said it's important to encourage proper use of these systems, because otherwise they might be encouraged to simply discharge outside of regulated areas that are just as sensitive as salmon rearing habitat as state waters. 4:03:14 PM RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council of Alaska (RDC), Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 29. He said over the last several years one of their key priorities has been to encourage the state to promote and defend the integrity of Alaska's permitting process, which includes predictable, timely and efficient processes that are based on good science and economic feasibility. They applaud the tireless work of the Science Advisory Panel that met at least 15 times over three years and came up with some good solid information to a rational waste water discharge policy for the cruise industry. This is not a rushed process given the amount of time and deliberation that has gone into supporting this bill. It's clear after reviewing the findings of that group and DEC recommendations that meeting current water quality standards at the point of discharge from cruise ships is not feasible and isn't necessary to protect the public and aquatic species. MR. ROGERS summarized that SB 29 establishes a policy that is based on sound science and economic feasibility; many small businesses and communities rely on cruise business activity for their livelihoods. The cruise ship industry has some of the cleanest discharge among dischargers in Alaska; better than many municipalities and fishing boats. It's troubling to start singling out one industry over another. CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony and held SB 29.