Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
02/20/2007 01:30 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Ocean Ranger Program | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2007
1:39 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Vic Kohring
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Woodie Salmon
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Andrea Doll
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: OCEAN RANGER PROGRAM
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE GELDHOF
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As co-author of the 2006 initiative that
established the Ocean Ranger Program, presented information and
answered questions regarding the authors' intent.
RENE ROUSSEL, Vice President
Nautical and Compliance Programs
Holland America Line ("Holland America")
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information regarding regulation
compliance by Holland America ships and answered questions
related to the Ocean Ranger Program.
DAVID WETZEL, President
Admiralty Environmental
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information and answered
questions related to the Ocean Ranger Program.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented information and answered
questions about the impact of the Ocean Ranger Program on DEC.
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to the Ocean
Ranger Program.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KYLE JOHANSEN called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:39:49 PM. Representatives
Johansen, Salmon, Doogan, Neuman, Johnson, and Kohring were
present at the call to order. Representative Fairclough arrived
as the meeting was in progress. Representative Doll was also in
attendance.
^OVERVIEW: OCEAN RANGER PROGRAM
1:39:55 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced that the only order of business would
be the Ocean Ranger Program that was established under the
Cruise Ship Ballot Initiative passed by Alaska voters in August
2006.
JOE GELDHOF stated that he is a co-author of the initiative. He
said that the initiative is the culmination of many years of
work, including work done by former Speaker of the House and
former Department of Revenue Commissioner, Hugh Malone. He
advised that while he would answer questions and give his
opinion to the committee, the only "intent" that would be given
weight by a court is the statements that accompanied the
initiative when it was submitted to the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor.
MR. GELDHOF, in response to questions, stated that he has had a
number of clients over the years and that he works for Marine
Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA), an organization that
represents licensed marine engineers working for Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS), Alaska Tanker Company, Horizon Lines, and
Samson Tug and Barge.
MR. GELDHOF explained that the initiative was put together by a
broad-based coalition of people interested in pollution,
revenue, and consumer protection. Discussion about how to
verify whether [cruise ships] were really doing what they were
supposed to be doing resulted in the idea of onboard observers -
ocean rangers - similar to what is done on commercial fishing
vessels. The Ocean Ranger Program would be funded by collecting
a user fee of four dollars [per passenger]. It was determined
that an ocean ranger should be an engineer licensed by the
United States Coast Guard (USCG). While [engineer] is an
undefined term and is probably someone with more than a "6-pack
license," it does not mean the ocean ranger must have a chief
engineer's license with an unlimited rating.
1:46:35 PM
MR. GELDHOF stated that the ocean rangers would report to the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), with incidental
reporting to the USCG and other federal agencies. The ocean
rangers would serve as observers to ensure that state, and
perhaps federal, law is being followed. The rangers are not
watchstanding, they do not put a license in the rack, and they
do not serve in the engine room or other place on the vessel.
They are there to report to and monitor testing as required by
DEC and ensure that the laws of Alaska are followed. If there
is a violation, the ocean ranger would then be the verification
agent witness for the state attorney general and possibly the
U.S. attorney general. He said that it was never envisioned
that the Ocean Ranger Program would entail coverage of 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week ("24/7").
MR. GELDHOF, in response to a question, said that the initiative
specifically states that its provisions are applicable to "large
passenger vessels" which are defined as vessels having 250 or
more berths. It was decided not to have the initiative apply to
smaller vessels for various environmental and revenue reasons.
MR. GELDHOF, in response to another question, said that the
primary responsibility of the ocean rangers is to oversee the
discharge of wastewater materials.
1:50:26 PM
MR. GELDHOF stated that ocean ranger duties also address
healthcare and sanitation. He related that the people who put
together the initiative acknowledged that there was no need to
monitor visible [smokestack] emissions and particulate because
this problem had been commendably addressed by the industry.
However, there was sentiment that ship ventilation systems, and
possibly some food service functions, should be monitored to
prevent the spread of viruses to passengers who, in turn, could
spread them to people in Alaska's coastal communities. He
emphasized that the Ocean Ranger Program is primarily related to
water quality and the protection of Alaska's waters and
fisheries from pollution.
MR. GELDHOF said it was envisioned that the ocean rangers could
be either state employees or contracted personnel. He related
that due to the seasonal and licensing requirements, the co-
authors realized that contracting the work might be better for
the state. Since there is a revenue stream, DEC would be able
to retain a marine management or shipping company that could
hire and train personnel in accordance to DEC standards and then
dispatch them as needed.
1:54:28 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN asked where personnel would be found to fill the
ocean ranger positions as they are written in the initiative.
MR. GELDHOF replied that there is not a talent pool in Alaska,
at least not before May 4, 2007, when the first cruise ship
sails in the Alaska trade. He said that if DEC waits even a few
more weeks it will be very difficult to identify, train, and put
into place the ocean rangers. There is a talent pool in the
U.S. that could be available with enough notice and the training
could be done through a 25-hour certification program. He said
there are young, maritime academy graduates who would like to
get the sea time even though it is not watchstanding. There are
also older people, such as 50-year-old chief engineers, who
might have an illness such as diabetes that precludes them from
standing watch under USCG rules, but that could act as an
observer for the state.
MR. GELDHOF pointed out that there is absolutely no need to
transfer the ranger at sea. He said it was envisioned that the
ranger would board the vessel in port, probably in Seattle or
Vancouver, complete the paperwork on the way up to Alaska, and
stay onboard for possibly up to two weeks depending on what DEC
and the marine management company work out during the
procurement process. The ranger could then disembark in Juneau
and board another vessel. Mr. Geldhof noted that having the
same person onboard a vessel for weeks and weeks is not
advisable for "familiarity" reasons. He said he did not mean to
sound harsh about DEC because the department is doing the best
it can to come to terms with this program, but that the
initiative's authors were anxious because DEC is getting "behind
the curve" for meeting the deadline of the first ship's arrival.
1:59:01 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN inquired whether this will have any affect on Mr.
Geldhof's clients who predominantly work on the AMHS. He
expressed his concern that the Ocean Ranger Program will impact
the AMHS because many of those employees are perfectly suited
for this program.
MR. GELDHOF answered that he does not anticipate a negative
effect on the AMHS, but that it would affect the people he
represents through the MEBA. He pointed out that the new law
does not require marine engineers from the MEBA and it does not
require union or non-union personnel, those options are up to
DEC. He acknowledged that through the marine engineer
procurement process, it is conceivable that some of the people
he represents from throughout the U.S. could end up in Alaska on
a cruise ship. In respect to AMHS employees, he said that he
thought it would be unusual for any of them to take a temporary,
seasonal job with a contractor. However, if an AMHS employee
had a 2-week-on/2-week-off schedule, that person might be
interested in taking a 2-week dispatch as an ocean ranger, and
that he did not think this would be a bad thing.
2:01:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how much income was anticipated from
the initiative.
MR. GELDHOF replied that in respect to the Ocean Ranger Program,
it was anticipated that $3.8 million would be brought in for use
in paying ocean ranger salaries and DEC's administrative
overhead. This was based on an estimate of 1 million passengers
coming through the Alaska trade per year.
2:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested Mr. Geldhof's comments regarding
reference to the Ocean Ranger Program on page 3 of the December
2006 DEC transition team report to Governor Palin which states
[original punctuation provided]:
The Cruise Ship Ballot Initiative substantively
duplicates DEC's existing commercial vessel
environmental compliance program and includes a new
permit and ocean ranger program. DEC estimates that
60 employees will have to be hired, which result in at
least a $2 million shortfall to implement the ballot
initiative.
MR. GELDHOF responded that he thinks DEC erroneously concluded
that there needed to be 24-hour watchstanding coverage which
would require a minimum of two ocean rangers on all vessels at
all times. He said that the intent of the initiative's sponsors
was to only have a single ranger assigned to a vessel and that
this ranger would only be on duty 8-10 hours per day. This
would substantially reduce DEC's estimate and bring it within
the bounds of the $3.8 million in income from the program.
2:04:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON commented that several years ago the
state responded to wastewater problems by passing a law
requiring that cruise ships have an environmental officer
onboard. He asked whether there is a way to have these officers
report directly to DEC in order to avoid duplication of effort.
MR. GELDHOF stated that he is not aware of any current law,
other than the Ocean Ranger Program, that mandates the cruise
ships in Alaska have an environmental official who reports to
DEC. He related that certain cruise lines in Hawaii have an
officer and an engineer onboard as the result of consent decrees
from federal actions. In Alaska there is no active onboard
monitoring. There are some reporting requirements where the
industry gathers data according to DEC regulations and law. An
onboard observer would cut down the incidents of pollution like
those that have taken place in the past.
2:06:04 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN noted that other people have interpreted the
initiative's language in different ways than stated by Mr.
Geldhof. He asked Mr. Geldhof to reiterate his interpretation
of the initiative's language regarding when a vessel must have a
marine engineer onboard. Is it when the ship leaves port? Is
it when the ship crosses into Alaska waters? Is it at the pilot
station? Is it at the port of entry?
MR. GELDHOF stated that the intention was when "it is entering"
and that this is stated in the new law. He said that the
initiative's authors thought that the ocean ranger should embark
with the vessel from Seattle or Vancouver so that the observer
is there from the "get go". The authors left the tail end loose
so that there would be enough flexibility for DEC or the marine
management company to move the observers in an efficient way.
He relayed that the authors specifically rejected the idea that
an observer would come aboard in Dixon Entrance or other
potentially rough place with the pilot. The authors also
thought that boarding the observers in Seattle or Vancouver
would provide the opportunity for cost-sharing with the
governments of Canada or Washington. The details of how long
the observer would be onboard the ship were intentionally left
to DEC and/or the marine management company.
2:09:20 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN inquired whether it was envisioned that the
observer would be on call 24/7 once he or she was onboard or
would there be two observers onboard with 12-hour shifts.
MR. GELDHOF stated that the authors specifically rejected having
two observers onboard. He said that the intention was to have a
single ranger onboard each vessel when it entered Alaska and
that the ranger would be "available" 24 hours a day, but not "on
duty" 24 hours because it is not a watchstanding type of marine
job.
2:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked whether any of the initiative's
authors had talked with DEC personnel regarding the program's
scope and where the rangers would board the ships.
MR. GELDHOF replied that he had talked with DEC and that DEC is
moving slowly on implementing the program. However, the
Department of Revenue (DOR) is moving expeditiously on
regulations for collecting the program fees. He commented that
DEC appears to be in a quandary as to what to do. He stated
that he has told DEC that the initiative only requires a single
ocean ranger, so there is no need for an extra general fund GF)
appropriation of $2 million. Mr. Geldhof said that he had a
constructive discussion with then-Commissioner Fredriksson about
options, and that he also had discussions with DEC staff in
November and December 2006 and again in either late January or
early February 2007.
2:13:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN requested further clarification on whether
Section 46.03.476 of the statute requires that the ocean rangers
be DEC employees.
MR. GELDHOF stated that the new law "on its face" gives DEC the
discretion to either hire ocean rangers as employees or to
contract out. The intent was to give the department this
flexibility so that it could get the job done.
2:14:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired as to how many marine
engineers are in Alaska.
MR. GELDHOF said that there are conceivably 300-400 during
summer months when there are marine engineers holding licenses
from the Netherlands and Indonesia. There are always marine
engineers on the Alaska Marine Highway System and on ships
picking up crude oil in Valdez, some of whom are Alaska
residents and some of whom are not. He said that he could not
give a firm number of Alaska residents who hold a USCG license
at an "unlimited thirds rating" or above, which is what the USCG
believes is probably warranted under the new law.
2:15:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that the statute language
asks for USCG certified marine engineers, and that it is her
understanding that there are only about 80 USCG certified marine
engineers employed by the AMHS. She expressed her concern that
the Ocean Ranger Program may attract some of those licensed
engineers, subsequently damaging the ferry system. She asked
how will the state qualify prospective engineers from elsewhere
and where will those people be found.
MR. GELDHOF replied that the new law gives DEC the flexibility
to work with a marine management company to contract for the
services of an ocean ranger. He said that the wages should be
set at the entry level of third engineer, and that this wage
level would not be attractive to AMHS employees who are "chiefs,
firsts, or seconds" and who have "permanent billets". He
advised that the only thing DEC or the contractor would then
need to do is determine the details of what the ocean rangers
will do, give them training in those responsibilities, and then
deploy them. Structuring the wages at an entry level will not
cause "cannibalism" of AMHS and private marine companies.
2:19:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH voiced her concern that there may not
be enough time to hire people and get them USCG certified by
May.
2:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how long would an ocean ranger be
employed during the year.
MR. GELDHOF explained that in the maritime industry people go
where the work is, taking dispatches of varying lengths in time
that can be as short as two weeks or as long as five months. A
young marine academy graduate could take an ocean ranger
position for as short a time as a few weeks or for the entire
summer. He said that the cruise ship season in Alaska is from
early May to late September, and that an ocean ranger could work
all or part of the season.
2:22:14 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN noted that state regulation of cruise ship
wastewater began in 2001 with the passage of House Bill 260. He
referred to DEC's 2004 compliance report entitled, "Assessment
of Cruise Ship and Ferry Wastewater Impacts in Alaska". He
requested Mr. Geldhof to clarify his earlier statements about
there being no oversight by DEC.
MR. GELDHOF stated that beginning in 2000 or 2001 Alaska's
standards led the world in addressing cruise ship pollution.
However, he said, what was not implemented was the same degree
of permitting that is required of seafood processors and other
industries. The [2001 legislation] was a half-measure because
it did not have active onboard observers. The ocean ranger
portion of the initiative requires the cruise ship industry to
get a permit and meet all Alaska water quality standards, and it
puts onboard an active agent of the state to monitor the testing
and to monitor that Alaska's laws are being followed. Mr.
Geldhof stressed that he did not mean to imply that the state
does not do anything. The initiative ratchets up where the
state was in 2000 and Alaska is once again in the forefront of
protecting its marine waters.
2:26:01 PM
RENE ROUSSEL, Vice President, Nautical and Compliance Programs,
Holland America Line ("Holland America"), reviewed his years of
marine experience and the responsibilities of his current
position. He reported that Holland America had eight ships in
Alaska in 2006 and that all of them have advanced wastewater
treatment systems (AWWTS). The systems treat both gray- and
blackwater and meet both USCG and Alaska standards. He said
that items such as plastics are filtered out of the wastewater
and disposed ashore and that biomass from the aerobic process is
discharged outside 12 miles; with the resulting permeate meeting
or exceeding drinking water qualities. Mr. Roussel explained
that bi-monthly samples must be taken in order to maintain USCG
certification. Additionally, samples are taken twice monthly by
DEC. He distributed a USCG article entitled, "Cleaning Up
Wastewater".
2:34:13 PM
MR. ROUSSEL concurred with Mr. Geldhof's statement that Alaska
set the pace for the rest of the world in the early 2000s. Mr.
Roussel pointed out that those standards have now been
replicated by other states. He read from page 6 of the
aforementioned DEC report and then cited a 2004 DEC PowerPoint
presentation which states that no hazardous chemicals are being
discharged through cruise ship wastewater systems and that large
ship effluents meet all Alaska quality standards in receiving
water. He said the reports indicate that the cruise ship
industry is doing a good job of taking pollutants out of its
wastewater discharges.
MR. ROUSSEL reported that cruise ships must now comply with many
layers of regulations, including air emission regulations,
because other states and countries have followed Alaska's lead.
He noted that human error accounts for over 80 percent of marine
casualties and violations, and that one way to reduce this error
is to provide clear, unambiguous guidance on what conduct is
expected. Different and multiple layered regulations across
jurisdictional boundaries complicate this process and should be
avoided - standardization and uniformity are desired. He
reviewed other rules and regulations that are impacting the
cruise ship industry.
2:46:36 PM
MR. ROUSSEL pointed out that Holland America is also voluntarily
implementing several programs. For example, the company has
installed monitoring systems on its ships that record the time
and ship's location whenever an overboard discharge valve is
opened or closed. This system will sound an alarm if discharge
is occurring at an improper time or location. Holland America
is also testing electronic recordkeeping systems on one of its
ships to reduce the amount of time officers spend in the keeping
and verifying of records.
2:49:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there was anyone currently
on Holland America's ships who would meet the qualifications
being required for an ocean ranger.
MR. ROUSSEL answered yes, the environmental officers.
2:50:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether environmental officers
have responsibility beyond what the ship's captain or crew says.
MR. ROUSSEL responded that the environmental officers report
directly to the master of the ship.
2:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether there is anything that
would keep the environmental officers from being certified by
the State of Alaska so that they could become ocean rangers and
provide DEC with reports that would fulfill the requirements of
the initiative.
MR. ROUSSEL replied that this would be a possibility because the
environmental officers' duties already far exceed what the Ocean
Ranger Program envisions. However, he said, what is really
being asked for is transparency in what the environmental
officers are doing onboard the ships. What would be reported
would need to be defined.
2:53:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated that the citizens of Alaska passed
the initiative, that they want a more open government, and that
it is the legislature's responsibility to ensure that this
happens. He requested Mr. Roussel's ideas for how the
environmental officers could serve this dual purpose and still
ensure an open process.
MR. ROUSSEL responded that he thinks there is the potential of
doing more than the initiative proposed. A series of
discussions could be undertaken to determine where the "rubbing
points" are and then a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) could
be developed and tested for implementing the Ocean Ranger
Program. After testing the MOU and making any necessary
changes, it could be then used for developing into a regulation.
Regarding the suggestion that experienced engineers with
disabilities could be hired as ocean rangers, Mr. Roussel said
that Holland America's insurance companies would not allow
disabled personnel in a ship's engine room. He said that he
likes the idea of an environmental officer having a relationship
with the regulators, and that this could be fleshed out.
2:57:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN inquired how a person working for the
cruise ship company being regulated would fulfill his or her
duties in a case where a vessel violated the standards. Would
the person first report the violation to the cruise ship or to
the regulatory agency?
MR. ROUSSEL noted that personnel are already required to report
violations, and that it is worse to not report something than to
cover it up because failing to report is a criminal violation
under most statutes. If the captain on a Holland America ship
refuses to report an incident, the environmental officer is then
required to report it to the Vice President of Environmental
Compliance. He stated that Holland America's own incident
reporting requirements are lower than Alaska's, and that any
incident covered by regulation would then be reported to the
USCG, the flag state, or the local state, as required. He
suggested that the MOU could stipulate the reporting of other
things that are not already required by regulation. Mr. Roussel
said that he does not see a conflict because reporting is
required by regulation.
3:01:04 PM
DAVID WETZEL, President, Admiralty Environmental, noted that his
business provides sampling and project management services to
the cruise line companies operating in Alaska waters. He
explained that cruise ships are currently subject to testing of
their effluent under both state and federal regulations, and
that Admiralty Environmental provides a third party independent
sampling service to meet these requirements. Admiralty
Environmental employees are trained in standard environmental
sampling procedures, wastewater chemistry, and the basic
concepts of marine advanced wastewater treatment systems.
MR. WETZEL related that all cruise ship sampling activities must
be performed under the guidelines of the cruise ship Quality
Assurance Quality Control Plan (QA/QCP). He said that this
document was composed in 1999 as a guideline for monitoring the
effluent from large ships and that it is reviewed each year to
reflect changes in regulatory framework and improvements in the
program. He stated that all of Admiralty Environmental's
employees are fully trained in the activities directed by this
plan, including sampling, field testing, safety, chain of
custody procedures, quality control, and delivery of samples to
the laboratory. Mr. Wetzel said that the QA/QCP also mandates
the service of a third party quality assurance officer to
oversee all sampling and analytical testing on the project.
This position is currently held by Dr. Lisa Hoferkamp of the
University of Alaska Southeast. She performs independent
sampling and data audits throughout the Alaska cruise season.
She reports directly to DEC and the USCG regulators with her
findings.
3:02:49 PM
MR. WETZEL pointed out that DEC audits the sampling program
regularly throughout the season. These audits are performed
against the QA/QCP to ensure that all proper procedures are
being followed. He noted that the basis of the QA/QCP is that
it is a random, unannounced sampling and analysis program. The
program began as a voluntary activity in the year 2000 and was
later adopted into state and federal law. Each ship is sampled
twice per season for a comprehensive list of conventional and
priority pollutants. He noted that this sampling can occur at
any location where ships are discharging into Alaska waters.
This particular plan mandates that all sampling activities and
analytical work are supervised by a third party independent
project manager, and this is the service that Admiralty
Environmental provides.
MR. WETZEL stated that Admiralty Environmental reports all of
its activities directly to the regulatory agencies. He
emphasized that the plan includes very detailed directions for
the flow of information between the project manager, regulators,
quality assurance officers, lab managers, and the vessel owners.
The plan is adopted by the entire industry through the Northwest
Cruise Ship Association and all ships are treated equally under
this plan. The data produced from this project is distributed
concurrently to the regulators and the vessel owners.
3:04:12 PM
MR. WETZEL also discussed federal regulation 33CFR159 that
contains a provision for continuous discharge into Alaska waters
for vessels when certain conditions are met. Ships must
demonstrate compliance with federal effluent limits with five
satisfactory samples over a 30 day period. Once the USCG grants
a certification to discharge under this program, the vessel must
present two satisfactory sample results per month that meet
these federal effluent limits to maintain the certification.
Ships must maintain this testing year around even when sailing
outside of Alaska waters.
MR. WETZEL explained that in order to operate cleanly and meet
these standards, most of the cruise ships have installed
advanced wastewater systems to allow them to discharge into
Alaska waters. He related that in the 2006 season, all 26 of
the large ships that regularly call in Alaska waters had these
advanced treatment systems onboard. Of these 26 ships, 23
applied for and received the continuous discharge certification
from the USCG. He said that he expects to see the same type of
numbers for the 2007 season.
3:05:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether Admiralty Environmental's
employees are USCG certified and whether they are marine
engineers.
MR. WETZEL replied no, they are not USCG certified. He
explained that Admiralty Environmental is certified through the
State of Alaska to do the sampling, and that the USCG does not
have a certification program for sampling. He stated that
Admiralty Environmental's employees are not marine engineers.
Mr. Wetzel related that the company has standard operating
procedures that employee's must follow for all of the sampling
and chain of custody activities, and that the company has an
internal structure for training its employees in the activities
that they perform.
MR. WETZEL, in response to a further question from
Representative Johnson, confirmed that none of Admiralty
Environmental's employees would meet the initiative's criteria
of being a [USCG licensed] marine engineer. He explained that
the activities performed by Admiralty Environmental do not
pertain to, nor require, a marine engineer license.
3:07:12 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN requested further explanation of how the program
actually works in the field.
MR. WETZEL stated that different cruise lines have different
approaches. He explained that for the unannounced program,
Admiralty Environmental conducts two unannounced sampling events
on all the ships calling in Alaska waters under the Northwest
Cruise Ship Association. For the 23 ships that maintain
continuous discharge certification, Admiralty Environmental
conducts sampling of each ship a minimum of twice per month. He
noted that several of the other cruise lines voluntarily exceed
that amount of sampling, and that Admiralty Environmental
samples them every port call in Juneau or elsewhere so they are
sampled at least once a week.
MR. WETZEL, in further response to Chair Johansen, explained
that all the ships calling in Alaska now have environmental
officers. These officers are charged by their individual
companies to administrate the sampling program, so the officers
escort Admiralty Environmental employees throughout the time
that they are onboard for sampling. In addition to the official
tests conducted by Admiralty Environmental, the company has in
some cases trained the environmental officers to perform their
own onboard tests to monitor the quality of their effluent. He
stated that these officers are fairly well informed in how their
ship's systems operate and the chemistry that is involved.
3:09:29 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced assistant attorney
general, Ruth Hamilton Heese. She noted that Ms. Heese has been
instrumental in helping DEC implement its current program along
with the changes that the ballot initiative is driving. Ms.
Kent related that in 2006 there were 29 large vessels that took
a total of about 550 voyages to Alaska, and there were 17 small
vessels that took a total of about 200 voyages. She explained
that a large vessel has 250 or more lower berths and a small
vessel has 50-250 lower berths. These vessels carry over one
million passengers and crew each year to Alaska. Most of the
vessels coming to Alaska have advanced wastewater treatment
systems, she reported. They treat to meet federal and state
requirements, and they are approved by DEC and the USCG to
discharge continuously while they are in Alaska waters. The
standards that they have to meet for their discharge are much
more stringent than for vessels that want to discharge under
different circumstances.
MS. KENT said that there was a handful of vessels last year that
chose to hold their wastewater while in Alaska waters and
discharge outside of Alaska waters. Therefore, those vessels
did not have to meet specific requirements for their discharges
other than to not discharge while here. She reported that there
was one vessel that discharged per DEC's regulations, meaning it
was going at least six knots at the time of discharge and was
one mile from shore.
3:11:53 PM
MS. KENT stated that DEC's current oversight program is run with
a staff of just over two full-time equivalents (FTE) plus some
contractor assistance. The current program requires an annual
registration for all of the large and small vessels and they do
this through an electronic online registration system. This
will continue under the new initiative. Ms. Kent related that
there are regulatory limits that limit the quality of the
wastewater that can be discharged from the vessels. The vessels
are required to have a vessel-specific sampling plan that is
approved by DEC and they must have a quality assurance project
plan that is approved by the department to ensure that DEC can
have confidence in the data that is generated. She said that
she would skip a review of the sampling requirements since that
was covered by Mr. Wetzel. Ms. Kent explained that vessels must
also record the dates, times, locations, volumes, and flow rates
of any discharges of sewage, graywater, and other wastes into
waters of the state. She said that these records must be made
available to DEC if requested and that the department does
occasionally request the records to make sure the vessels are
complying.
MS. KENT noted that some independent inspections of vessels are
conducted. A contractor is used to conduct visible emissions
readings to measure the opacity of vessel air emissions, and
this is done about 250 times a year on different vessels while
they are in port. She said that the department takes
enforcement action when a violation occurs in wastewater
discharge or air emission. She pointed out that DEC
occasionally conducts special studies, such as ambient air
monitoring.
MS. KENT explained that DEC collects fees based on a fee
structure in existing statutes for running the program, and that
the fee is still in place under the new initiative. She
remarked that Alaska's program has been very effective and that
other states and countries look at Alaska as the model.
3:13:57 PM
MS. KENT cited the current program's successes. She said that
air opacity violations decreased from 15 in 2000 to 2 in 2005,
the last year for which she has data. She noted that the number
of violations issued each year for exceeding the limits on fecal
coliform bacteria are either zero or one. She said that several
compliance letters are sent each year, primarily having to do
with sampling protocols or a small vessel that did not take the
samples it was required to take.
MS. KENT informed the committee that the ballot initiative took
effect in December 2006. The initiative requires changes to
DEC's current program and it requires some new functions. She
said that DEC is taking the initiative very seriously and is
working diligently to implement the program as it is currently
written. She emphasized that regardless of the intent behind
the words on paper, DEC must implement what is written in the
statute despite any ambiguity in the initiative's language. She
pointed out that most of the changes under the initiative apply
to the large vessels.
MS. KENT related that the initiative includes a provision for
citizen suits against owners and operators of the vessels for
alleged violations of the statutes. It allows for suits against
DEC for failure to perform any of the parts of the law that are
not discretionary. She stressed that DEC is therefore "in the
hot seat" to implement the bill as it is written. The citizen
suit provision also provides that 25-50 percent of any fines or
penalties go to the person who provided information sufficient
to commence the investigation of the enforcement action.
However, she said, it is not clear if that last provision
applies only to the public or if it applies to vessel staff, or
ocean rangers, or DEC staff. Ms. Kent said that the provision
appears to be limited to Alaska residents; therefore a passenger
on a vessel who notices a violation would be ineligible for a
share of the penalty.
3:16:54 PM
MS. KENT pointed out that the initiative will require DEC to
revise its current regulations because it makes substantive
changes. The department has hired a contractor to assist in
looking at the current regulations to see what needs to be
changed. While it is important to amend the regulations, she
said, it is not quite as time critical as some of the other
provisions in the initiative such as the new permit requirement.
MS. KENT explained that the initiative requires DEC to now issue
wastewater discharge permits to the vessels, much like the
permits that are issued to other industrial or domestic
wastewater dischargers. The department is in the process of
drafting a general permit. A general permit is a single permit
under which multiple vessels or multiple regulated entities are
covered together - this is done when the discharges are
relatively the same. She stated that DEC plans to go to public
notice soon and is hoping to have the general permit in place
for the coming cruise ship season. If possible, the department
intends to use the current online vessel registration system for
the general permit so as not to add another layer of
requirements on the industry. She expects that the permit will
include most of the same monitoring and reporting requirements
that DEC currently has in place for the industry outside of the
context of the permit.
MS. KENT reported that the initiative requires hourly GPS
tracking of both large and small vessels while they are in
Alaska waters. She said that DEC is using contractor assistance
in order to have the system operational by the coming cruise
ship season.
3:18:32 PM
MS. KENT noted that the Ocean Ranger Program is by far the most
significant change to DEC's current program. It will require a
USCG licensed marine engineer on the large ships while they are
in Alaska. The ocean ranger's job is to serve as an independent
observer to monitor both state and federal requirements for
marine discharge and pollution and to ensure that passengers,
crew, and residents at port are protected from improper
sanitation, health, and safety practices. She advised that this
is an incredibly broad mandate that goes beyond the traditional
mandates that DEC has had, particularly in regard to safety
issues. In addition to the safety issues, it could include
wastewater discharge, solid waste, air opacity, drinking water,
and food service.
MS. KENT related that a contractor was hired to evaluate the
needs and to make recommendations regarding the Ocean Ranger
Program, and that DEC is currently reviewing the contractor's
draft report. Copies of the report will be made available to
the legislature once it is finished. The contractor is
evaluating whether the ocean rangers should be state employees,
contracted personnel, or some combination of the two, and
whether onboard coverage should be 24/7, or 8-12 hour shifts, or
some other level of oversight. Ms. Kent noted that the
initiative is silent on the coverage and DEC must determine the
level that is sufficient to meet what DEC believes is the
initiative's intent.
MS. KENT said that the contractor is also looking at whether the
ocean rangers should embark on a voyage from Washington, or
British Columbia, or an Alaskan port of call. Additionally, the
contractor is looking into how the cruise industry will assess
for room and board of the ocean rangers while they are onboard,
the logistics for getting them on and off the vessels,
scheduling and dispatch needs, the required qualifications and
job descriptions, training needs, and the availability of
qualified marine engineers. She warned that there will likely
be a problem for this first year in having enough qualified
marine engineers available. Lastly, the contractor is looking
at the costs of the various options as they will vary
significantly if coverage is less than 24/7.
3:21:01 PM
MS. KENT outlined the challenges that DEC is facing in finding
marine engineers. She explained that a marine engineer license
requires training in a maritime academy and sufficient sea time
and experience in the vessel power and propulsion systems. The
department believes that an unlimited third engineer's license
is probably the appropriate license needed to qualify for an
ocean ranger. A licensed third engineer would come with skills
and knowledge in propulsion, power generation systems, essential
auxiliary systems, and vessel safety systems. However, she
noted, a licensed third engineer would not be trained in all the
state and federal environmental laws, public health laws, and
the safety rules that the initiative requires the engineers to
know and watch for while they are onboard the cruise ships.
MS. KENT pointed out that a big part of this effort is dealing
with the training challenges for the ocean rangers. For
example, there are DEC employees who are focused only on air
issues, or only on wastewater issues, or only on solid waste
issues. Now DEC must have marine engineers who are trained in
all of those subject areas and the department must do this in a
very short time period. Ms. Kent explained that the marine
engineers/ocean rangers will need to know about the technical
wastewater management systems, permitting and permit compliance,
and inspection and enforcement protocols. They will also need
onboard training for each vessel-specific wastewater system.
Lastly, DEC must determine what training is necessary for ocean
rangers regarding the protection of residents at port. The
initiative does not give any guidance on this issue.
MS. KENT noted that this is the first and only program where DEC
actually places a state employee or contractor in a regulated
facility potentially full-time, and that DEC does not currently
do this with any other industry in the state. She explained
that this comes with a host of other issues that have never been
addressed by DEC, such as safety of the ocean rangers while they
are onboard the vessels and their conduct while onboard but off
duty. There are also security clearance issues and the
potential need for vessel staff to provide escorts to the ocean
rangers when they are in sensitive portions of the ship.
3:23:18 PM
MS. KENT reported that DEC is working on an implementation plan
for the coming cruise ship season, along with a schedule. The
department is trying to figure out what it can feasibly do in
the short amount of time remaining before the season starts.
She stated that DEC would like to conduct a public workshop to
go through the contractor's report and get feedback on the
implementation options. The department plans to have some ocean
rangers onboard some vessels this coming cruise ship season.
However, she advised, DEC will not have a fully developed
program with suitably trained ocean rangers on every vessel this
year. The department will be using this season to ramp up, gain
experience, and refine the program for full implementation in
2008.
3:24:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH referred to the previous discussion
with Holland America regarding use of the cruise line's
environmental officers for implementing the program. While
acknowledging that this could be considered the fox watching the
hen house, she asked whether there might be a possibility of
entering into an MOU for this first year.
MS. KENT said that this is a new concept that had not previously
been contemplated by DEC.
3:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH commented that the voters have spoken
and asked Alaska to be more diligent in its management of the
cruise ship industry. However, she said, the voters may not
have understood all the unintended regulatory consequences or
questions involved with implementing the initiative.
MS. KENT replied that she and Ms. Heese looked at the
initiative's language and it does say "independent". Therefore
DEC needs to determine what "independent" means vis-à-vis a
vessel crew member.
3:25:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH noted that Alaska has state and
municipal ombudsmen who are tasked with a higher level of
reporting on their own industry or their personnel. Therefore
it might be helpful if the state went with that model in some
way, at least for year one, so that the state could have some
sort of a systems analysis on how to gather the information.
MS. KENT observed that prior to the state enacting laws
regulating the cruise ships, the industry worked with DEC on a
voluntary basis to collect data about their discharges, and this
information led to the department's program. She remarked that
DEC has a good working relationship with the industry ahead of
rule making.
3:26:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether the information
gathering is technical in nature so that the data cannot be
altered when it comes in or whether it is physical reporting
that is written down.
MS. KENT explained that DEC receives the sampling results for
the wastewater discharge monitoring directly from the laboratory
and the samplers, so there is no intervening step by the cruise
ship industry. She said that the method of collecting other
data varies. Some vessels are still manually keeping a log book
of when the ship's discharge valves are opened and closed and
the ship's location at the time. Other vessels are recording
this electronically.
3:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what the penalty is for not
reporting a violation.
RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
responded that if there is an event of non-reporting, the vessel
can be held accountable under the current system. She said that
there are fines for failure to report violations, but that she
is unsure of the dollar value. She said that she would get the
information for the committee. In response to a further
question, Ms. Heese stated that she did not know whether
criminal charges are involved for failing to report violations,
and that she would get this information to the committee as
well.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether it would be sufficient
for transparency purposes to enact legislation that assesses a
substantial penalty for violations by environmental officers on
vessels that partner with the state to act as "ocean rangers".
MS. HEESE answered that this is a policy question for the
legislature and DEC.
3:29:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DOOGAN asked how DEC resolved the questions and
ambiguities that the department sees in the initiative.
MS. KENT explained that DEC is still trying to resolve some of
them, one example being the expectations for health and safety
of the public at port. Another example is that statutes on the
books prior to the initiative made reference to other provisions
in the law that have now been deleted. The result is "roads to
nowhere" in the statutes that are now causing confusion about
small ships and what they need to comply with. In response to
further questions, Ms. Kent stated that the contractor was hired
two months ago to help look at the various options for those
things having no guidance in the initiative. She related that
DEC began looking at the implementation challenges as soon as
the bill passed in August 2006. It took a lot of time for DEC
and DOL to sort through the challenges and determine what the
issues were for the contractor to address.
3:31:17 PM
CHAIR JOHANSEN announced that he is reserving the right for
further discussion of the issue at the next committee meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:31
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|