SB 266-MARINE ANTI-FOULING PAINTS  CHAIRMAN HALFORD announced SB 266 to be up for consideration and said that Senator Leman had a proposed CS and an amendment. SENATOR LEMAN remarked that on a complex bill like this, it's tough to get it right the first time. He explained that SB 266 goes hand-in-hand with 1987 legislation that banned the use of TBT paints on vessels in Alaska. The 1987 legislation made exceptions for vessels of the U.S. government, foreign vessels in state waters fewer than 90 consecutive days, and vessels of 4,000 gross tons or more. Over the past 13 years, research done by many, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reconfirmed that TBT does have an effect on shellfish and other marine life. SENATOR LEMAN said he became aware of this state law in a Finance subcommittee and decided it made sense to remove the exceptions for the other vessels. SENATOR LEMAN informed committee members that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is proposing to ban the use of TBT paints beginning in 2003 and to totally eliminate them by 2008. SB 266, as originally introduced, had a slightly more aggressive schedule than that. After working with people who will be affected by the ban, he prepared a committee substitute that prohibits painting or treating beginning in 2001. The bill contains an effective date. SENATOR MACKIE moved to adopt the proposed CSSB 266 (1LS1148\ version G). There were no objections and it was so ordered. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Leman is aware of any opposition to the legislation. SENATOR LEMAN answered no, but concerns have been expressed about scheduling and whether U.S. shipyards could queue up to do the work. One other concern he heard is whether the EPA will allow TBT paint to be removed from ships in some of the U.S. shipyards. If not, ship owners will have to go to a foreign shipyard, which he thinks is crazy since U.S. people should be allowed to do the work. He believes this version of the bill will allow the work to take place in an orderly fashion. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if this bill requires the removal of TBT based paint or whether it just says it cannot be reapplied.   SENATOR LEMAN answered that it cannot be reapplied. Another issue that was raised is that some ship owners who have maintenance scheduled may have already ordered the paint, which is why they suggested an effective date of January 1, 2001. A ship could have the TBT-based paint on a hull after that, but it couldn't be reapplied. CHAIRMAN HALFORD wondered if anyone has a large stock of TBT paint. SENATOR LEMAN responded that paint suppliers have said they would be happy to sell the alternative paint because they would make more money. It doesn't last as long and they could sell more of it. From what he can tell personally, the alternative paint is very effective. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked what the IMO deadline was otherwise. SENATOR LEMAN said the IMO proposed the year 2003 for banning the reapplication and 2008 to eliminate it in its entirety. The ship owners say they can live with the proposed IMO schedule. Number 883 MS. ANNETTE KREITZER, staff to Senator Leman, clarified that one of the problems has to do with the way the current law, AS 46.03.715(b), reads: TBT-based marine antifouling paint need not be removed from fishing gear or from a vessel or other item that was painted or treated before December 1, 1987, but the vessel gear or item may not be repainted or retreated with TBT-based marine anti-fouling paint or coating. The concern is with the way the bill was originally introduced. The vessels that fit under the exemption might possibly be subject to someone misconstruing the law to mean that they had been painted after 1987. The original bill left a gap between 1987 and 2003 (the IMO phase-out date). Today she talked to John L. Sullivan, ARCO Marine, who told her that many companies preorder the TBT paint and, if the deadline is January 1, 2001, they would have the opportunity to exhaust the supplies they have on hand. She also spoke with Mr. Al Parish of Holland America, who said they could also meet that deadline. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the existing exemption for aluminum vessels is perpetual. MS. KREITZER explained that it's perpetual under state law, but no one knows what the IMO will do. Right now the IMO is proposing a ban on everything on aluminum boats. Aluminum boats were exempted because of galvanic corrosion. If you put a penny into an aluminum boat, it will eat right through it, so copper-based antifouling paints cannot be used. Aluminum boats typically have a very heavy epoxy coating. Some people apply a copper-based anti-fouling paint over that but paint experts say that is dangerous. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the aluminum exemption applies to aircraft floats. MS. KREITZER answered yes - in state law. Number 1198 MR. JOHN HANSON, President, North West Cruise Ship Association (NWCSA), stated support for CSSB 266. NWCSA represents eight cruise lines that come to Alaska, largely from Vancouver. The companies include: Holland America, Carnival, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Princess Cruises, Celebrity Royal Caribbean, World Explorer, and Crystal Cruises. These companies operate a total of 21 ships. They operate in over 100 countries and, in North America alone, they are in over 25 states and provinces. Most of the safety and environmental protection standards are established by international agreement. The IMO has deliberated extensively during the last few years over the use of anti-fouling paint. Senator Leman's bill is an informed affirmation of this commitment to replace TBT-based paint. He has checked with most of his member lines and they are comfortable with the dates proposed in the legislation. Number 1351 DR. JOHN KELLY, International Paint, said International Paint is the largest supplier of marine paint in the world. It supports SB 266. He is concerned about the IMO ban application date of 2003 because other commercial owners that have not been mentioned might be affected by it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how effective other paints are compared to TBT. He asked if TBT had a rating of ten, whether other coatings now available have the same rating. MR. KELLY said other coatings are now available that are not toxic but are as effective. Those coatings are supplied to other parts of the world. International Paint hopes to get them registered in the near future with the U.S. EPA. MR. GERSHON COHEN, a Haines resident, said he is Project Manager for the Earth Island Institute. He thanked Senator Leman for this legislation because it represents a very positive step toward the continued protection of Alaska's marine ecosystems and the people who depend upon them. Over the past several decades, a significant amount of research has been conducted on TBT compounds and closely related compounds. TBT was first developed and applied as antifouling paint in the 1960s. It killed a broad spectrum of life forms. It is very persistent and active at the nanogram level of a billionth of a gram per liter. Organisms can accumulate TBT by consuming food and water. MR. COHEN gave the following history of problems associated with TBT paint. In the 1970s, concerns about the toxin began to surface when it was demonstrated to be almost instantly lethal to marine fauna at doses of eight parts per billion. In the early 1980s, TBT use on boats doing near-shore activities was implicated in the crash of the French oyster market. Similar effects were soon observed on the oyster industry in Great Britain. The French quickly adopted national regulations banning the use of TBT on boats less than 25 meters in length. A broader prohibition for TBT use on small vessels was subsequently implemented by the International Maritime Organizations. By the mid-1980s, it had been demonstrated that TBT stimulated testosterone production, causing a condition called "imposex" whereby females began to take on male sexual characteristics. This abnormal sexual development leads to the abortion of eggs in half the females and, therefore, sterility for the species, which soon disappears entirely from the location. Typical of many contaminants possessing hormone disrupting capacity, genetic effects, as well as immune and neurological impairments, have been recorded with TBT exposure. Recent research has clearly demonstrated that the impacts of TBT and other compounds are not restricted to marine invertebrates. Marine mammals and bird populations in Asia are documented to have high levels of TBT. In recent studies in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, published by the American Chemical Society, high levels of TBT were found in the organs of dead bottle-nosed dolphins stranded along the coast of Florida and Georgia in 1997-98. Existing TBT prohibitions, which were intended to focus on near shore impacts, were no longer believed to offer adequate protection. Many species that feed almost exclusively in deep sea areas, such as sperm whales, are demonstrating high levels of TBT contamination also. There is no reason to believe that people consuming contaminated organisms are not being similarly affected. Given TBT's ability to persist in bioaccumulates of the food chain and the fact that large vessels applying TBT paints spend extensive periods of time in our near shore waters, it is prudent for the protection of public health, our marine environment, and our fisheries industries to expand the prohibition of the use of TBT to all ships that ply Alaskan waters. Alternatives to TBT-based paints exist today. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard, the Alaska Ferry System, and Alaska's fishing fleet no longer use TBT paints. A Coast Guard representative recently informed him that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a shipyard in the U.S. that will apply TBT paint today. He anticipates that the full banning of TBT paint use in Alaska will stimulate paint manufacturers to redouble their efforts to find new and better alternatives. He asked the Committee to add a sunset clause to the bill that sets a date by which all existing TBT residues are removed from ships and properly disposed of, or that hulls be effectively sealed with less toxic anti-fouling coatings following protocols approved by either the EPA or Coast Guard. Number 1647 CAPTAIN ED PAGE, U.S. Coast Guard, Juneau, testified that the Coast Guard and Navy are already in compliance and don't use TBT paints. In general, they are using copper-based paints and coverings that are slippery so that organisms can't adhere to hulls. The Coast Guard approaches any change in international shipping regulations through the IMO for the sake of consistency and to ensure a level playing field. The IMO is meeting next week on this very issue and he expects it will make its law effective in 2003. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if the IMO has not approved that provision yet. CAPTAIN PAGE said that is correct. He was not sure that the IMO would act on it next week. One concern is that the "tramp" industry, which doesn't regularly ply Alaska waters, may not get the word that quickly. It might be more difficult for those vessel owners to comply in time. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the enforcement would work. CAPTAIN PAGE said the Coast Guard would enforce the law if it is eventually adopted by the IMO. He encouraged the State to use an enforcement regime similar to the one used by the IMO in which a certificate of compliance is provided by a classification society or the entity that oversees that vessel. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked how the State enforces the law now. MS. KREITZER replied that DEC would enforce it. CHAIRMAN HALFORD noted that DEC reported a zero fiscal note. He asked if that implies DEC doesn't have to do it. SENATOR LEMAN said it might imply that once the law is in place and people know about it, TBT-based paints won't be used, and that DEC expects very few exceptions. CHAIRMAN HALFORD asked if Senator Leman has had any response from DEC. MS. KREITZER said when the bill was first introduced, she spoke with Mr. David Rogers of DEC who said it did not. SENATOR GREEN asked if it would be appropriate to wait for the IMO to meet before taking action on this bill. CHAIRMAN HALFORD said he didn't think waiting would hurt the bill's chances if the IMO was going to meet in a week. SENATOR LEMAN said the State has a more ambitious schedule than what the IMO is proposing. He didn't think the IMO's actions would affect what the committee did. SENATOR PARNELL concurred with Senator Leman. MR. JOE LEBEAU, Alaska Center for the Environment, expressed total support for SB 266. SENATOR PARNELL moved to pass CSSB 266(RES) from committee with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.