Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/05/2001 01:10 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2001
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE WORK SESSION ON CRUISE SHIP DISCHARGES
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE KRIEBER, Staff
to Representative Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the issue of
cruise ship discharges.
MICHAEL CONWAY, Director
Division of Statewide Public Service
Department of Environmental Conservation;
Coordinator, Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative
410 Willoughby Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT:
COMMANDER BOYCE BINGHAM
U.S. Coast Guard - Juneau
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the U.S. Coast Guard's role with
cruise ship discharges.
STEVE TOROK
Environmental Protection Agency
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 100
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT:
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives
Kohring, Masek, Scalzi, and Kookesh were present at the call to
order. Representative Wilson arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Representative Kerttula was also in attendance.
COMMITTEE WORK SESSION ON CRUISE SHIP DISCHARGES
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the committee would discuss the
issue of the cruise ship discharges. He explained that this
hearing would provide information to committee members prior to
the hearing of Representative Kerttula's legislation. [This
meeting] will cover the history and the status of the cruise
ship industry as well as the government's efforts with regard to
discharges and pollutants in Alaskan waters. The other purpose
of this work session is to become familiar with U.S. Senator
Murkowski's recently passed legislation that addresses cruise
ship discharges.
Number 0234
MIKE KRIEBER, Staff to Representative Kohring, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee that Representative
Kerttula's bill is HB 22, the governor's bill is HB 183 and its
companion bill is HB 134. Also Senator Halford's bill, SB 18,
addresses many of these concerns. However, he echoed Chair
Kohring's statement that this meeting will not discuss any of
the pending state legislation. On the other hand, Mr. Krieber
announced that he would discuss the committee packet that
includes some history and current reports regarding this issue.
MR. KRIEBER began by informing the committee that in December
1999, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
convened a forum that addressed the concerns with the cruise
ship industry. There was particular concern with regard to
wastewater discharges as well as smoke. [There was also
concern/discussion] regarding "doughnut holes," which are areas
in which cruise ships could legally discharge untreated waste
into the water without having to meet any treatment criteria
because of the area's distance from Alaskan waters.
Number 0437
MR. KRIEBER directed the committee's attention to A-1 in the
committee packet, which lists 34 questions and issues that were
discussed at the December 1999 forum sponsored by DEC. The
categories of those items were as follows: air emissions,
wastewater discharges, solid and hazardous waste management
disposal, and oil spill preparedness. The result of that forum
was the formation of the following four work groups: Air
Quality Management, Oil Pollution Response, Wastewater and Solid
Waste, and Environmental Leadership. Mr. Krieber pointed out
that the committee packet includes the websites for those
particular groups, which can be found in A-1 through A-5. There
is further detail at the DEC website and thus he recommended
that the committee review that information.
MR. KRIEBER identified the following specific mandates of the
work groups: to identify the waste streams and spill risks that
could impact Alaska's air and water resources; to develop
pollution prevention and waste management solutions that would
eliminate or reduce impacts, including better technology,
management practices, and shoreside capacity; to access what
process is needed to verify and monitor compliance; and to keep
Alaskans informed.
Number 0564
MR. KRIEBER informed the committee that in May 2000 the Cruise
Ship Initiative produced their Part 1 report. That report
[recommended] the development of a plan for random third party
wastewater sampling of all cruise ships, the development of a
plan for air monitoring in downtown Juneau, the survey of the
waste stream discharges and solid waste handling practices for
all cruise ships, the identification of proposals and pilot
projects from the cruise ship industry for a number of these new
technologies, and approved maintenance and operation plans for
the oil spill response activities. He recalled that the first
bill heard in the House Transportation Standing Committee was
the Oil Spill Prevention & Response legislation, HB 55, that has
already been signed into law. Therefore, that work group will
not be discussed today.
MR. KRIEBER turned to the Air Quality Work Group, which oversaw
the air monitoring program that was conducted last year in
downtown Juneau. Three locations were selected. The dock area
monitoring was actually below what would have received the smoke
stack discharges. He referred to the dock area sampling as a
"background sample" [that includes] the combustion of the
vehicles in town, heating systems, et cetera. Another
monitoring area was by the Baranof Hotel, which is located
uphill and thus would catch some of the smoke stack plume. The
Capital School area was also monitored. All three sites were
tested for very fine particulates, 2.5 micron size pieces of
stuff in the air. That is a potential health concern when it
enters the lungs. There was also testing for sulfur dioxide and
oxide to nitrogen that are by-products of combustion. The
highest recorded levels from any of these monitoring efforts
were significantly below any of the health standards established
by federal and state agencies. The Air Quality group
recommended continued monitoring during the 2001 cruise ship
season in order to ensure that there weren't any abnormal
situations that would have prohibited detection. For instance,
the sampling was performed during the wet part of the season.
Therefore, the Air Quality Work Group wanted to obtain some
sampling during the early part of the summer when there isn't as
much moisture in the air, which reduces the count of
particulates and other potential contaminants.
MR. KRIEBER continued with the second concern with air quality,
which is the smoke or rather, opacity. Opacity is the
"blackness" of the smoke. He explained that a good engine
burning good fuel will have cleaner smoke whereas black smoke
would be produced by an engine that is burning lesser quality
fuel or the improper fuel for that engine. The department had a
long-term program to measure opacity, but that program was
dropped in 1997 due to budget constraints. However, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started and DEC
participated in [taking] opacity readings a couple of years ago.
Approximately 50 percent of the readings taken were in violation
of standards and both the federal and state governments issued
citations.
Number 0821
MR. KRIEBER explained that the cruise ship industry has
responded to these problems with new technologies and
alternative ways of generating power while in port. For
instance, Princess Cruise expects to be able to use shoreside
power instead of running the main engines when docked in
[Juneau]. The Royal Caribbean and Celebrity Cruise Lines will
each have a gas turbine cruise ship coming to Alaska. Gas
engines burn fuel with less visible emissions. Also Carnival
Cruise Lines will have a cruise ship that will use
electronically controlled fuel injection. Furthermore, numerous
retrofits are being made on direct steam injection and lube oil
consumption monitoring both of which have been shown to reduce
emissions up to 40 percent. Mr. Krieber clarified that he was
reading from a DEC draft report, the Alaska Cruise Ship
Initiative Part 2 report, that will be finalized and presented
tomorrow.
Number 0889
MICHAEL CONWAY, Director, Division of Statewide Public Service
Department of Environmental Conservation; Coordinator, Alaska
Cruise Ship Initiative explained that tomorrow comments a will
be taken and he imagined those would be available in a couple of
weeks. In response to Mr. Krieber, Mr. Conway affirmed that the
draft report is on the website now. The draft report won't be
changed until all the comments are received, after which the
finalized version will be available on the website.
MR. KRIEBER continued with the Wastewater and Solid Waste
Management Work Group that is found on page A-4 in the committee
packet. The primary concern for that group is in regard to
wastewater because there haven't been too many concerns raised
by communities regarding the improper disposal of solid waste.
Therefore, Mr. Krieber turned to wastewater. He explained that
ballast water is discharged when a vessel takes on fuel; that is
done stateside [and thus] there are no indications of any
discharges of ballast water here in Alaska to be concerned
about. Therefore, the wastewater being focused on is sewage.
There are two types of [sewage]: graywater and blackwater. He
explained that blackwater primarily comes from toilet waste
while graywater comes from sink water, laundry, and
miscellaneous uses of water. Many people don't realize that
graywater can be quite polluted. However, DEC regulations
define graywater and blackwater as the same because both carry
fecal coliform bacteria as well as other pollutants. Graywater
includes other types of pollutants that make treatment a bit
more difficult than treatment for direct blackwater.
MR. KRIEBER pointed out that since the 1970s there have been
some minimum treatment levels of blackwater for marine
sanitation devices. However, last year the monitoring program
highlighted that the marine sanitation devices aren't "up to
snuff." Furthermore, it was discovered that the graywater had
high levels of contamination. Therefore, these issues need to
be addressed. Mr. Krieber informed the committee that the
cruise ship industry has come forward with new treatment systems
and innovative technologies that appear to be promising. The
industry has done some testing on some initial systems that have
reported very low levels of bacterial discharge. These
[systems] are using chlorination techniques and ultraviolet
disinfection as well as some filtration technology.
MR. KRIEBER informed the committee that the wastewater streams
were also tested for toxic hazardous compounds. The Phase 2
report contains a fairly comprehensive table of various
compounds for which they tested. For the most part, there were
no signs of hazardous waste being mixed with the wastewater
streams. However, he emphasized that he wasn't saying that
there aren't chemicals in the wastewater streams that need to be
addressed. He pointed out that some of the testing protocol
that has been recommended for the next year will attempt to
identify [the chemicals in the wastewater streams] through the
analytical process. He cited dissolved metals versus total
metals as an example and explained that dissolved metals are
viewed as being more easily taken in by an organism. However,
total metals aren't viewed as a carcinogen or toxic material.
Number 1129
MR. KRIEBER also informed the committee that all 21 large cruise
ships were sampled for these priority pollutants for hazardous
waste. He reiterated that the primary concern of the wastewater
discharges is related to what is typically thought of as
contaminants from blackwater, although graywater includes those
contaminants as well. These contaminants are things such as
fecal coliform, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen
demand. He explained that biochemical oxygen demand is the
discharge of an organic substance that will take oxygen from the
water, which is of high concern when dealing with very sensitive
environments. He identified other contaminants such as ammonia,
pH, and chlorine. He reiterated that there are no indications
of any hazardous substances being mixed with the wastewater
stream. However, the report does discuss a couple of the sample
results that were reported as hazardous chemicals, but those
were determined to be lab cross-contamination. Mr. Krieber
turned to federal regulations and pointed out that only
blackwater discharge is regulated, that is in regard to
discharge limits. If graywater is mixed with the blackwater,
then it is viewed as blackwater and thus subject to the same
regulatory requirements.
Number 1224
MR. KRIEBER continued by informing the committee that last year
the cruise lines volunteered to eliminate their in-port
discharges and to discharge at a distance of at least 10 miles
from the port of call or departure. He reiterated that
graywater is of concern because it contains chemicals that are
detrimental to the environment. Therefore, the cruise lines and
proposed legislation are addressing graywater. He also
reiterated that the cruise line industry is looking at some new
technologies and the industry has done some initial installation
and testing with some of this technology. That information is
detailed in the Phase 2 report.
Number 1330
MR. KRIEBER turned to the Environmental Leadership Work Group,
which is looking for innovative ways to prevent pollution. He
likened this work group to the Green Star program, which
performs the aforementioned as well as outreach to the
communities, individuals, and businesses outside their group in
an attempt to avoid the use of hazardous materials. The
information on that is contained on page A-5 of the committee
packet. He pointed out that the information on page A-5
illustrates the spectrum of the groups involved with this work
group.
Number 1390
MR. KRIEBER then addressed the federal legislation, B in the
committee packet, that was passed and signed by former President
Clinton in December 2000. He said that the U.S. Coast Guard and
the EPA will address what they see as their respective roles in
promulgating regulations and enforcing these federal codes. He
pointed out that the committee packet, C-1 through C-3, includes
some EPA documents regarding what they are doing locally and
nationally. There is a summary of a September 2000 workshop
here in Juneau.
Number 1462
COMMANDER BOYCE BINGHAM, U.S. Coast Guard - Juneau, began by
saying that much has been accomplished in the partnership
between the state and federal governments as well as the cruise
ship industry and the community. He said, "I think it's safe to
say that the water of Alaska will be less impacted in 2001 by
the cruise industry than they were before, much because of the
joint efforts." Commander Bingham turned to the federal
legislation and noted that the legislation directs several
issues at the U.S. Coast Guard while others are directed to the
EPA. For the portion concerning the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S.
Coast Guard has drafted regulations and is awaiting signatures
in the Department of Transportation. He specified that [these
regulations] are in the form of a notice of proposed rule-
making. Initially, there was review of an interim rule that
would have allowed the regulations to go into effect
immediately. However, there were some concerns at the
department level regarding the fact that this was not urgent
enough in nature to bypass the public comment process.
Therefore, when the notice of proposal comes out, there will be
a 30-day comment period after which the comments will addressed.
Once those comments are satisfactorily addressed, a final rule
will be issued. Commander Bingham informed the committee that
he anticipates that those regulations will be in place at some
point during this cruise season.
COMMANDER BINGHAM informed the committee that he had been in
contact with the cruise ship industry, which has said that it
will continue with its efforts in the voluntary sampling and
testing program that was in place last year. Therefore, the
U.S. Coast Guard will continue to oversee that process. The
[federal legislation] also contains several portions that are
self-executing. He identified those self-executing portions as
follows: Section 1403, which prohibits the discharge of
untreated sewage into Alaskan waters; Section 1404(a), Section
1404 (c) and Section 1407, which describes the standards that
have to be met.
COMMANDER BINGHAM, in response to Representative Scalzi,
reiterated that the standards are included in Section 1407 of
U.S. Senator Murkowski's legislation. Commander Bingham
confirmed that the standard is a fecal coliform bacterial count
of less than 200 [colonies] per 100 milliliters or suspended
solids less than 150 milligrams per liter. The other self-
executing portion would allow a vessel proceeding at more than
six knots from a location more than a mile from the shore to
discharge treated sewage.
Number 1698
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI turned to the purpose of the federal
legislation and remarked that the language isn't very specific
in that it only refers to the navigable waters of the United
States [within the State of Alaska] except for the specific
references to Alexander Archipelago and the Kachemak Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve. Representative Scalzi
asked, "Is there other areas of the country that the Senator did
not want to include at this time?"
COMMANDER BINGHAM answered that he didn't know what the
intention was at the federal level. However, this [language]
covers all of Alaska's waters, which is out three miles, and
basically closes the doughnut holes of the Inside Passage.
Commander Bingham pointed out that in Alaska when a cruise ship
enters Alaska's waters, it does so for several days at a time
whereas the cruise ships in the Lower 48 merely disembark and
embark passengers and return to international waters.
Therefore, the time a cruise ship remains in a body of water in
Alaska is different [than the time it spends in the Lower 48].
Number 1775
CHAIR KOHRING asked if Commander Bingham had any information in
regard to the number and size of the cruise ship vessels that
have been experienced in Alaska. He inquired as to the growth
of the cruise ship industry over the last decade.
COMMANDER BINGHAM deferred to the cruise ship industry, although
he recalled that this season 23 vessels intend to call on
Alaska. In further response to Chair Kohring, Commander Bingham
said that the U.S. Coast Guard is encouraged by the new
wastewater systems that the cruise ship industry is reviewing.
He said that he has the impression that the cruise ship industry
is fully committed to reviewing all available technologies in
order to find a technology that would process sewage and fit on
the vessel itself. The [cruise ship industry] is making
progress and he estimated that it would only be a few years
before this goal is achieved.
Number 1861
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked if the U.S. Coast Guard will
actively stop vessels and check these [discharges] once the
[regulations] are in place.
COMMANDER BINGHAM explained that the draft regulations provide
for the following: testing within 30 days of the vessel's
arrival in Alaska's waters; testing of the blackwater; random
testing of the graywater for priority pollutants; and ongoing
testing throughout the season.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the federal legislation addresses
any air quality standards.
COMMANDER BINGHAM answered that air quality isn't addressed by
U.S. Senator Murkowski's legislation.
Number 1932
CHAIR KOHRING inquired as to Commander Bingham's opinion of the
draft regulations.
COMMANDER BINGHAM explained that U.S. Senator Murkowski's
legislation provides direction for the U.S. Coast Guard in
regard to the areas to focus on in creating regulations to
implement the will of the Congress and ultimately, the will of
the people. Commander Bingham, a co-writer of the regulations,
felt that the regulations are comprehensive and were written
with foresight in regard to allowing new technology while
addressing the concerns of the Congress.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH remarked that most federal standards that
he has seen aren't the strictest but rather are minimal
standards. Therefore, he asked if the U.S. Coast Guard would
review the state's standards, especially if those are stricter
than the federal standards.
COMMANDER BINGHAM agreed that [the state's standards] would be
reviewed. He also noted that U.S. Senator Murkowski's
legislation contains a stricter standard with regard to fecal
coliform counts than that contained in the EPA standards.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH emphasized that he was speaking in
general that the federal standards are minimal. Therefore, he
didn't want to give the impression that the federal regulation
should be accepted as the regulation to live by. He pointed out
that he lives in a village where the cruise ships pass and thus
the villages aren't impacted by their dollar. Therefore, his
concern is in making standards that are sufficient so as to not
impact "us as a people."
COMMANDER BINGHAM said that he, as a fellow Alaskan, shared that
concern. He noted that it would be helpful to have some
analysis regarding the impact of 200 fecal coliform on 150 total
suspended solids (TSS) on the water.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH said that is his point exactly because no
matter where the standards are set, they may not be good enough.
Therefore, he wanted to ensure that there is room to change the
standards later, if necessary.
COMMANDER BINGHAM pointed out that the standards in U.S. Senator
Murkowski's legislation are interim standards that allow for the
EPA to review that and possibly develop different standards.
Number 2137
STEVE TOROK, Environmental Protection Agency, began by providing
the committee with an overview of the EPA's activities related
to the cruise ship issues. He informed the committee that the
EPA has been involved with the Department of Justice in various
investigations over the past several years. In March 2000 the
EPA received a petition from the Blue Water Network that was co-
signed by 53 other environmental organizations across the
country. The petition requested that the EPA conduct an
assessment and investigation of the cruise ship industry and the
discharges and pollution coming from the cruise ships. The EPA
agreed to do such an assessment. Prior to that, the EPA joined
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S.
Coast Guard in participating in the Alaska Clean Water
Initiative. He remarked that the EPA views the assessment and
the initiative as complimentary activities not duplicative.
MR. TOROK said that work has continued with regard to collecting
information and the EPA has relied heavily on the Alaska Cruise
Ship Initiative, which has been very valuable. Originally, the
EPA intended to have a draft report available in the late Fall,
but that has been delayed. However, he anticipated that the
draft report will receive public notice in a few weeks. Mr.
Torok returned to the petition, which specifically requested the
identification of various wastewater streams, the assessment of
the impacts of those streams and the quantity and quality of
those discharges as well as the treatment technologies that are
currently being used. The EPA has attempted to do that. He
pointed out that [the EPA] has much more knowledge now than it
did two years ago thanks to the Clean Water Initiative.
However, he acknowledged that "we" don't know enough because
there is still much information to be gathered, specifically
ship by ship in regard to the quantities of discharges from each
ship, the quality of the discharges from each ship, and the
[routes] of the various wastewater streams within the ship.
Number 2279
MR. TOROK commended the participation of the cruise ship
industry as well as their efforts in relation to advancing
technology. He noted [the EPA's] support of the industry's goal
of having no pollutant discharge. He acknowledged that these
ships are getting larger. In response to the earlier question
regarding the growth of the industry, Mr. Torok estimated that
there has been an increase from about 350,000 in crew and
passengers in 1990 to about 1 million in crew and passengers
last year. He said, "A million people on these ships for about
... five to seven days generating the waste. So, it is an issue
that deserves attention." He pointed out that U.S. Senator
Murkowski's legislation does authorize EPA to work with the U.S.
Coast Guard in the implementation of Title 14, specifically the
legislation authorizes the EPA to establish affluent standards
for both blackwater and graywater. The legislation also
reinforces the EPA's authority to grant no discharge zones as
requested by the governor. Therefore, there are provisions
under the Clean Water Act and under Title 14 that provide a
mechanism for the governor and the state to declare areas no
discharge zones.
MR. TOROK announced that the EPA's draft assessment on cruise
ship discharges will address the EPA's recommended intentions
with regard to Title 14. Specifically, [the draft] will address
whether the EPA will or will not pursue affluent standards. The
draft will also lay out a series of recommendations for public
review and comment with regard to other actions that can be
taken by the EPA with regard to enforcement and redefinitions of
blackwater under the current Clean Water Act. To this stage, it
has been accepted that cruise ship discharges are exempt from
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program. Within the petition of the Blue Water Network,
there was the request to reevaluate that exemption and consider
bringing cruise ship discharges under NPDES for permitting
purposes. He explained that the advantage of a permit system is
that it requires the discharger to monitor and thus sample the
discharges regularly and to report those sample results.
Therefore, "we" begin to learn what is discharged and how much
is being discharged. Currently, that is unknown.
Number 2435
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to why the cruise ships were
exempt from the NPDES permit program.
MR. TOROK explained that this goes back to the early 1970s. He
noted that he could speak to what the EPA was thinking at that
time because he was with the EPA. In the early 1970s the NPDES
permit program was just beginning. There were a number of ...
TAPE 01-26, SIDE B
MR. TOROK said, "... that had a wastewater discharge and [had]
previously been unregulated from a permitting perspective."
Through the Clean Water Act in the early 1970s, the EPA was
given the authority to establish a permit system. [The EPA]
recognized that it could not require and establish permit
parameters and write permits for every discharger in the
country. Therefore, a "pecking order" was established and the
worst polluters were addressed first. At that time, discharges
from ships weren't considered to be a large threat and thus they
were placed lower on the list. In order to relieve the EPA of
its legal and regulatory burden of having those ships operate
without a permit, those ships were exempted from the NPDES
permit program.
Number 2415
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired as to the increase Alaska has
experienced with the cruise ship industry since that time.
MR. TOROK replied, "Tremendous." The cruise ship industry of
today is much different than the industry that existed in the
1970s.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if the EPA works with the State of
Alaska in regulating other industries in Alaska such as the
mining, timber, or fishing industry.
MR. TOROK replied, "Yes." He explained that NPDES permitting
system hasn't been delegated to the State of Alaska and thus the
EPA retains the authority to issue permits to those large
industries. The State of Alaska is required to certify those
permits. The EPA relies on the state to ensure that the permit
that is being written for that facility will meet state water
quality standards. In further response to Representative
Kookesh, Mr. Torok agreed that there are state statutes in the
aforementioned three industries with which the EPA already
works.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH identified the cruise ship industry as a
new industry for which there are no regulatory statutes.
Therefore, he surmised that it would be "natural" for the
[state] to be considering cruise ship laws in Alaska Statutes,
statutes similar to those used for timber, mining, and fishing
industries.
CHAIR KOHRING inquired as to Mr. Torok's opinion regarding
whether the cruise ship industry's efforts are moving in the
correct direction.
MR. TOROK answered that he believes that the cruise ship
industry has given every indication that it is moving in the
correct direction and exploring newer technologies. He
reiterated the cruise ship industry's stated goal of "no
pollutant discharge" and having the ability to recycle water
onboard and reuse that water. Mr. Torok commented that the
cruise ship industry is in the best position to do this because
they have 100 percent control over what happens on the ship. On
the other hand, a local sewage treatment plant doesn't have that
advantage because that plant has to deal with whatever the
public has put down the drain; it is much more complicated to
deal with [pollutants at the end point rather than the insertion
point].
Number 2274
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH related his belief that this work
shouldn't be viewed as the standard but rather the work with the
industry should be ongoing and has to be within the parameters
that Alaskans feel comfortable. While Representative Kookesh
noted his appreciation of the cruise ship industry's work and
innovation, he reemphasized his belief that it is not the
standard.
MR. TOROK informed the committee that the Blue Water Network
modified its petition to the EPA in June to include air quality
emissions. He also informed the committee of the EPA's fairly
extensive public participation program and consultation with the
tribes, which the EPA will continue to do as the draft report is
released.
MR. KRIEBER summarized that today's discussion has highlighted
some concerns raised regarding the discharges from the cruise
ships. The committee has also heard that the cruise ship
industry is addressing some new technologies. Furthermore,
there is pending federal legislation. Mr. Krieber indicated a
commitment to hear Representative Kerttula's bill, HB 22, on
April 19 as well as hearing the governor's bill the following
week. Mr. Krieber reminded everyone that DEC's website houses a
lot of information. He then requested that Mr. Conway inform
the committee of the Cruise Ship Initiative Steering Committee's
agenda for tomorrow.
Number 2150
MR. CONWAY affirmed that tomorrow is the Spring meeting of the
Alaska Cruise Ship Initiative Steering Committee. He noted that
Michele Brown, Commissioner, DEC; Admiral Barrett; the President
of the North West Cruise Ship Association; Acting Regional
Administrator of the EPA; Lauren Gerhard, Executive Director,
Southeast Conference will be in attendance. This group has been
working since last summer in order to compile the information of
the results obtained through the Cruise Ship Initiative work,
which will be the first item of business. The Phase 2 report is
on the web and thus it is the opportunity for the steering
committee to review it, provide feedback, and wrap up the 2000
season.
MR. CONWAY informed the committee that the volunteer efforts to
review the results of last summer have [recommended] work that
needs to be performed for the following cruise ship season. Mr.
Rogers, DEC, has spearheaded the efforts on air and water
quality. There is a plan to do work this summer in order to
follow-up on issues that were identified last season. This is a
comprehensive group of individuals, who will present an overview
of their plan for this coming season. The U.S. Coast Guard will
present its plan for implementing the federal legislation for
this summer. The final item on the agenda is to discuss the
pending cruise ship legislation.
MR. CONWAY emphasized that the steering committee is a high-
level group that can provide checks and balances and provide
direction to the work group efforts. The meeting is scheduled
from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the DEC conference room. He
noted that the meeting will be teleconferenced.
Number 1993
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH commented that he wasn't too enthusiastic
about this work session; however, now he appreciates it. He
noted his appreciation of the committee scheduling
Representative Kerttula's bill and the governor's bill because
he would rather have the Alaska State Legislature determine
where the cruise ship industry is going in Alaska.
Representative Kookesh thanked the representatives from the EPA
and the U.S. Coast Guard.
CHAIR KOHRING noted his appreciation for all those in
attendance. He said, "We are not here to 'beat up' on the
cruise ship industry. I want to recognize there are good things
that you bring to the state of Alaska. You really bolster our
economy wonderfully." He noted the need to be cognizant of the
cruise ship industry's concerns with the pending legislation.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:09
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|