HB 134-CRUISE SHIP WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS  4:15:09 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIREI announced the consideration of HB 134. [Before the committee was CSHB 134(RES). REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, Alaska State Legislature, said HB 134 pertains to the economic development of Southeast communities and the regulation of discharges from cruise ships. As per a citizen's initiative, levels of discharge from cruise ships are collected measured at the point of discharge. He compared this to exhaust coming from the tailpipe of an automobile. The initiative further requires a particular discharge level to be met by 2010, but technology is not available to meet that requirement. The only option would be for the ships to build larger holding tanks and discharge three miles offshore in federal waters. HB 134 seeks to create a waiver in law until the technology is available to meet the 2010 standard. Up until now, DEC has been doing this through regulation. We don't want the industry to simply build larger holding tanks and then dump even worse water in deeper federal waters. We want ships to be able to discharge in Alaska's waters in a manner that lives up to the 2010 standard. 4:18:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS deferred technical questions to the DEC representatives. SENATOR STEVENS asked if the cost of the technology will be considered. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said DEC will make that sort of determination. The current problem is that the instrumentation doesn't conform to the size of the ship. The technology is available for much larger ships, but it is too cumbersome and would require extensive rebuilding. Some would say that building larger holding tanks is a technology, but that doesn't solve the problem. DEC says it needs the ability to keep the industry's feet to the fire until economically feasible technology is available. Hopefully that will be sooner than later, he added. SENATOR HUGGINS asked if the discharge standard is universal. 4:22:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said no; the standard in the initiative is higher. The effluent discharge standard for a sewage treatment plant is much lower, but the public hasn't asked for that standard to be changed. The public did ask for this discharge standard for large cruise ships and that has to be respected. At the heart of the matter is the fact that only cruise ships have measurements taken at the point of discharge; mixing zones are not allowed. The initial bill eliminated the phrase "at the point of discharge." Under the mixing zone standard, every ship today would have met the 2010 standard; all ships did not meet the 2010 standard under the point of discharge measure. Ammonia and copper are particularly problematic under the stricter standard. The issue comes down to the amount of time that cruise ships have to meet the standard and under what conditions. HB 134 doesn't eliminate the standard; it places a waiver in statute and the time frame is determined by the Legislature. SENATOR HUGGINS said this appears to be a compromise. REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS agreed; he was asked to carry the initial bill and the administration is now on board. He added that DEC had been issuing a waiver that was created by regulation, but not necessarily allowed under the initiative. 4:26:17 PM LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environment Conservation (DEC), said DEC has been working with Representative Harris and the co-chairs of the House Resources Committee to address the concerns the administration had with the original version of HB 134. He believes everyone was guided by the common goal of protecting Alaska's clean water. The real issue was how to coax a major industry to reach a standard that it cannot reach today. Current Alaska statute leaves the cruise ship companies in the difficult position of discharging in federal waters or discharging in violation of the state standard. COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that DEC has provided a compliance schedule in a general permit it issues to cruise ships. He clarified that this isn't a waiver. DEC has statutory and regulatory authority to include compliance schedules in permits, but there are severe restrictions. To develop a compliance schedule DEC has to evaluate what technology can achieve for water treatment on cruise ships, but EPA hasn't looked at water treatment for the cruise ship industry. Because of this gap, DEC had to use its judgment for the compliance schedules. 4:29:50 PM In an effort to explore this further, DEC invited national and international experts to participate in a conference that was open to the public. They learned definitively that there is no existing technology to allow cruise ships to consistently meet the point of discharge water quality standards for ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc. HB 134 adds a section stating that as long as cruise ships employ the most technologically effective and economically feasible treatment, DEC is allowed to relax the standard. That being said, it is intended to be temporary and provisions in the bill provide technology forcing elements. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said any permit that DEC issues or reissues would require the cruise ship to meet the water treatment achievable at the time. DEC would appoint an 11 member advisory panel with at least four members coming from coastal communities, the cruise industry, the commercial fishing industry, and non-governmental organizations with an interest in water quality issues. The advisory panel and DEC would evaluate the reports from the cruise ship companies and the technology, and convene additional technology conferences in 2011 and 2013, and periodically report back to the Legislature. If you had to step in you would be acting with knowledge not speculation. It is DEC's perspective that it is extremely important to be able to regulate things based on science, he said. HB 134 includes an important anti-backsliding provision, which means that permits for next cruise season will be rewritten to include the achievable technology information learned from the technology conference. Compliance schedules may still be used, but whenever a permit is reissued the standards could not be less than in the previous permit. This will continue to drive the industry toward the goal. 4:34:14 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many cruise ships come to Alaska. COMMISSIONER HARTIG deferred to Lynn Kent for an exact number. LYNN KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) about 30 different large cruise ships come to Alaska each year. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many people come to Alaska on cruise ships every year. COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied about 1 million come each year. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many gallons of waste are being discharged. MS. KENT said she doesn't have the specific information, but DEC does collect that information from all vessels that have permits and choose to discharge in Alaska waters. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked for an estimate. MS. KENT said it would be in the millions of gallons. Responding to additional questions, she explained that about 10 or 12 vessels were permitted to discharge in Alaska waters last year. They meet Alaska water quality standards for everything except ammonia, nickel, copper, and zinc. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any ships currently have the technology to meet the 2011 standard. MS. KENT replied there are no vessels that are discharging that can meet all of the water quality standards all of the time. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he understands that some organizations attending the technology conference indicated that the technology is available. MS. KENT said what they learned at the conference is that there are technologies that can treat ammonia and technologies that can treat metals. They have been tried and used in shore-based facilities, but those systems are not readily available for installation and testing on ships. There is a possibility that certain things can be treated sooner than others and HB 134 allows DEC to stage the requirements. For example, when technology is available to treat ammonia it can be installed immediately. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there could be a detrimental impact on fish that are in areas where this waste is discharged. 4:38:23 PM MS. KENT replied DEC has been involved in many studies including a recent one that tested dilution in the Skagway harbor. That study showed that under most conditions the water quality standards would be met within 15 meters of the vessel. COMMISSIONER HARTIG added that the Skagway study tested stationary vessels and DEC could require that vessels could only discharge while underway and away from sensitive fishing areas and communities. A vessel traveling at six knots has a 60,000 dilution factor so it would be extremely unlikely that an aquatic organism would encounter harmful concentrations of waste. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what happens to the discharged aluminum, copper zinc, and nickel. COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied these elements and compounds already exist in the water; the question is if they are concentrated to the point of harming. HB 134 doesn't change existing requirements for permits including disallowing discharge in areas where a material could accumulate and concentrate to the point that it is harmful to organisms. 4:41:20 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he can't help but think that at some point the accumulation would be dangerous to aquatic life. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said if that rationale applies, there are other sources of copper and ammonia that are larger than cruise ship discharges. He reiterated that DEC would not allow anyone to discharge material to the point of it being a toxic situation. CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE recognized that Senator Stedman joined the committee some time ago and Representative Johnson is in the audience. SENATOR HUGGINS asked Commissioner Hartig to identify the larger sources of ammonia and copper that he mentioned. COMMISSIONER HARTIG named domestic wastewater treatment plants. For example, this city's wastewater treatment plant has higher levels of copper than DEC sees on cruise ships, he said. SENATOR HUGGINS said he isn't familiar with Juneau's treatment system, but he assumes that it goes into the same area every day and doesn't have a moving dilution factor. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said they do discharge into the marine environment at a fixed location. The dilution is a result of whatever current there may be. SENATOR HUGGINS asked if there have been fish kills from the discharges from Juneau's treatment plant. MS. KENT replied she is not aware of any reports of fish kills associated with domestic wastewater discharge from Juneau or any other community. 4:44:34 PM SENATOR STEDMAN asked if the point of discharge at the local treatment plant would be comparable to the point of discharge on a cruise ship. MS. KENT said she does not have the data in front of her, but she recalls that for the four parameters under discussion the levels discharged from the community system are relatively similar to the levels discharged by cruise ships. SENATOR STEDMAN asked the effect 15-30 feet from the point of discharge, if the ship is traveling at six knots, and if it is traveling 25 knots. MS. KENT replied she doesn't recall whether the mixing zone for the Juneau Douglas plant is 90 feet or 90 meters. When a cruise ship is underway at six knots the dilution factor is 50,000, which means that contaminants would be undetectable in the water behind the cruise ship. 4:47:03 PM SENATOR FRENCH asked if there is a record of the number of cruise ships that dump in federal waters. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said DEC has general permits it issues to cruise ships and if they choose to operate under the permit, DEC receives monthly reports on what is in the discharged waste and the volumes. They can also elect not to discharge under that permit. SENATOR FRENCH asked how many cruise ships elect not to have a permit and instead dump in federal waters. MS. KENT said last year 12 ships were covered under the general permit. SENATOR FRENCH summarized that 12 ships are operating under the DEC permit and 19 dumping in federal waters. He asked if it's irrational to deduce that the state's water standards are chasing people off to dump in the ocean. 4:49:16 PM COMMISSIONER HARTIG said the cruise companies are in that predicament. They either have to comply with requirements for which technology doesn't currently exist or they have to discharge three miles offshore. SENATOR FRENCH asked if anything prohibits the 12 cruise ships from dumping three miles offshore. COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied a ship that is three miles offshore is under EPA's more relaxed jurisdiction. "We have very strict standards in the state water." SENATOR FRENCH asked if subsection (e) will at some point go away or if there will be an ongoing effort to improve the permits every year. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he's reluctant to speculate on when the technology might be available, but he knows that the cruise ships are pretty darn close. 4:52:07 PM MS. KENT clarified that there were 31 cruise ships last year; 12 were not permitted and 19 were permitted. Some of the 19 ships chose not to discharge under the DEC permit and instead discharged in federal waters. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said one issue is that some of these ships didn't have the capacity to hold its waste. SENATOR STEDMAN asked for an explanation of the donut holes and their effect in Chatham, Frederick Sound, and Stephens Passage. He noted that Glacier Bay also is under federal jurisdiction. 4:53:26 PM MS. KENT said she believes that the donut holes have been closed for purposes of wastewater discharge. She said she isn't sure about Glacier Bay, but she would get an answer. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many gallons of wastewater a ship can typically hold and how much can be released at one time. MS. KENT said vessels vary, but some can hold thousands of gallons. The discharge is generally dependent on the size of the discharge port. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked for specific information on how much each ship can hold, if the entire tank can be released at one time, and the definition of "economically feasible." 4:55:29 PM COMMISSIONER HARTIG said that is standard terminology that is applied to any discharger in the state. If anybody wants to discharge pollutants into state waters that already have a quality that exceeds what is necessary to protect aquatic life and other uses, DEC does an anti-degradation analysis to determine whether or not it is appropriate to allow degradation of that clean water. Part of that is to look at whether the most technologically effective methods for pollution reduction are being used and if they are economically feasible. DEC has not defined that in regulation, but relies on EPA standards. In this case there are no EPA standards so they use the best professional judgment of the engineers and scientists putting the permit together. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he has experienced that the definition of economically feasible has a wide range. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he has been involved in trying to get permits for 25 years and it hasn't been a problem. The treatment technologies are known and are progressing. SENATOR FRENCH asked if "economically feasible" takes into account the underlying economics of the industry that is being regulated. COMMISSIONER HARTIG said he really hasn't seen that. What he has seen is that when an onshore industry is using a technology and the cruise ships are not, the differences and the economic hurtles are examined and compared. 4:59:15 PM MS. KENT added that the private sector is on notice that there is a need for technology to meet the more strict requirements for treatment of ammonia and metals. Companies that build onshore facilities now are looking at their applicability for vessels. DEC judges economic feasibility based in part on the commercial availability of such facilities. CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE asked Ms. Kent if she had any further testimony or information to contribute. MS. KENT said she has found information indicating that vessels are voluntarily holding their waste when they are in Glacier Bay. In response to Senator Wielechowski's earlier request for information about rate of discharge, she said the general wastewater discharge rate is 10,000-15,000 gallons per hour. She will get information regarding the wastewater holding tank capacity of each vessel to the committee later. CHIP THOMA, Responsible Cruising in Alaska (RCA), Juneau, said the Alaska voters approved this initiative in 2006, and HB 134 extends the time for cruise ships to comply with the water quality standards. RCA supports a reasonable time within which to comply, but would also like closure on the issue. The sunset provision in subsection (e) perhaps should have a date of January 1, 2014. Five seasons is an adequate length of time, he said. MR. THOMA said the DEC water division status report that is in the bill packet clearly describes the improvements that each cruise line is making. They all are doing amazingly well with the exception of Princess Cruises and Holland America. HB 134 addresses these problem ships. Many of the ships are making technological advances and many are already in compliance. As a result, the term "economically feasible" may be moot. If cost is the only impediment to install proper wastewater treatment for ammonia and suspended metals, the state could establish a no interest loan program for installing new cruise ship technology. He noted that the City and Borough of Juneau has provided no interest loans so that companies can install quieter engines in their flight seeing planes. This could be adapted on the state level if there really is a cost problem with installing these technological advances, he said. $70 million per year in taxes is coming in from the cruise ships so there's an adequate amount to do that. Responding to Senator Steven's question about weighing the cost of installing the technology, he said some of the ships already have adequate technology and the no interest loan is another option. Larger holding tanks may not be the technology everyone envisions, but they do solve the problem, he said. Clarence Strait, Sumner Strait, Frederick Sound, Lynn Canal, and Icy Straits are areas where fish migrate and whales feed. This is also where one ship after another discharges millions of gallons of wastewater as they transit these passages. 5:04:43 PM MR. THOMA said the federal government prohibits cruise ships from discharging while in Glacier Bay so all that discharging is done right outside in Icy Strait near Point Adolphus. That area was formerly a donut hole and is again being used by ships that have to discharge because they don't have sufficient holding capacity to wait and discharge in federal waters. He noted that according to the DEC report, the major source of the copper and zinc in wastewater is the shipboard piping that is leaching. Princess and Holland America are the only lines that have refused to replace their piping. MR. THOMA again suggested the committee amend the bill to sunset subsection (e) and look at the term "economically" because that's not the question. It's whether the technology is available in a size that can fit onboard the ship. 5:06:18 PM SENATOR STEDMAN said he's curious to know how measurements can be taken from a ship that is moving at 25 knots or more. MR. THOMA said DEC established a science panel in 1999 and 2000 to look at mixing zones. They came up with the dispersing formula, but it's based on engineering so none of it is scientific. SENATOR STEDMAN said he'd like to learn more because it would seem that the dilution factor would be greater when traveling at speed instead of tied to the dock. SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Thoma if he believes that discharging in federal waters is a good option for the cruise ships. MR. THOMA replied he would much rather they discharge in federal waters than in areas where fish migrate and whales feed. 5:09:06 PM SENATOR STEVENS asked if some of the ships have actually replaced all their copper piping. MR. THOMA said yes. He paraphrased and commented on pages 3-5 of the DEC report as follows: On page 3 the Silver Shadow fine-tuned its existing wastewater treatment system, replaced some of its piping and bows. Norwegian Cruise Line - replacement is being done primarily to address maintenance problems, bursting pipes, but this also may reduce the amount of metals in the ships' affluent. They're replacing sections of the metal potable water. Then on page 4 the Seven Seas Mariner met the long term effluent limits for nickel, replaced corroded metallic piping and valves. Celebrity Royal Caribbean those ships consistently discharge outside of Alaska waters and many of the ships have replaced many portions of their potable water piping with non metallic piping. Then you go to Princess and Holland and you find that has not been done. Princess is saying they produce drinking water that is very soft and may corrode their pipes and leach metals into their wastewater effluent. However, Princess did not provide any details regarding the actions that they would take to avoid this such as bunkering water, increasing the ratio of drinking water or changing out their pipes. Same thing with Holland America - five of the HAL ships consistently exceeded the long term effluent levels for ammonia and metals. The Statendam met them for copper. Sample data indicate bunkered water contains elevated levels of metal. Drinking water produced by the vessels also contains significant amounts of metals. They're generating about 60 percent of their water onboard the ships with their own evaporation systems all made out of copper pipes. So the combination of copper pipes in 2,000 staterooms, kitchens and everyplace else plus the water making facilities, you've got an incredible amount of copper leaching and zinc leaching going on. That is the source of the problem on Princess and Holland America ships. The other ships are addressing it. They realize it's the problem. They're trading out their pipes for flex tubing. So this whole discussion of bunkered water and high levels of copper in Southeast, that's not the problem. It's onboard the ships itself. 5:11:51 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he agrees with Commissioner Hartig's assertion that tremendous dilution occurs in the ocean. MR. THOMA said he is not an expert, but he's always been told that the DEC science panel developed the formula for the dilution factor based on engineering. They released dye and noted when it could no longer be seen. 5:13:08 PM CHRISTOPHER KRENZ, Scientist, said he represents Oceana, which is a nonprofit ocean conservation organization that has over 200 years of life experience and work in Alaska. He said that the State of Alaska has been a world leader in responsibly managing cruise ship pollution and Oceana would encourage continuation of that leadership by maintaining the existing protections for marine resources. The current version of HB 134 would increase the amount of pollution dumped into coastal waters and eliminate an important incentive to reduce the discharge of pollutants and contravene the clearly stated will of Alaska voters. Alaska coastal resources are vital and the vast quantities of waste that cruise ships discharge into the marine environment threaten the resources upon which Alaskans and the industry depend. HB 134 would alter a key provision of the law that voters passed by initiative requiring stringent regulation of cruise ship pollution. Cruise ship would be allowed to discharge into mixing zones, which are areas in which pollutant levels can exceed applicable state water quality standards. The copper, zinc, nickel and ammonia pollutants for which the cruise ship industry might seek mixing zones are toxic to marine life. Copper and ammonia are toxic at very low concentrations that are just above the state's water quality standard. Science based limits for these pollutants are contained in the state's water quality standards. These standards represent the best scientific determination of acceptable levels of pollutants based on an agreed level of risk to human health and the health of the environment. Under current law cruise ships are required to meet these standards. Any statement that changing this requirement to allow mixing zones would improve the scientific basis for regulations is false. Science has determined the appropriate limits and any policy choice to allow cruise ships to exceed those limits would be a mistake. 5:15:44 PM MR. KRENZ said the requirement that cruise ships meet discharge limits at the point of emission is an important incentive to implement existing technologies and keep the pollution out of Alaska waters. Many vessels are already meeting this requirement at least at times. Recent research indicates that promising technology exists and simply must be implemented on other cruise ships. The incentive to do so should not be eliminated. Alaska's waterways are finite and we should minimize the pollution that is dumped while striving to eliminate pollution all together. We encourage the committee to maintain protections for Alaska waters and incentives to improve those protections by opposing altering the state cruise ship initiative or at the least amending this bill to establish a deadline for any exemption. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he is able to answer scientific questions. MR. KRENZ replied he has a Ph.D. in marine ecology. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted the earlier testimony about the dilution factor and asked if he believes that allowing cruise ships to dump wastewater into Alaska waters is hazardous to marine life. MR. KRENZ said the written testimony he submitted addresses this in greater detail, but a lot of aquatic life is impacted by very low concentrations of copper. This includes organisms throughout the food web from algae to zooplankton to shellfish fish and fish. Animals in early life stages, such as mussels and clams in the larval phase, may be particularly sensitive to copper toxicity. Sub-lethal impacts to salmon occur at very low concentrations and can impair the ability to smell, which is critical for migration and finding natal stream. Copper is also known to affect salmon's immune response, brain function, and metabolism. Many species can bio-accumulate copper concentrations hundreds of times higher than concentrations in the surrounding water. He noted that his submitted testimony references those statements with citations. MR. KRENZ opined that dilution is never the solution. When a cruise ship is dumping underway dilution is great, but fecal coliform levels are a concern when multiple ships with many passengers are transiting the same area day after day. Another concern is that it basically allows mixing zones in any area in Southeast Alaska that cruise ships are allowed to go. A difference between a cruise ship and a municipal wastewater treatment plant is that the municipal discharge is confined to a particular area. 5:19:43 PM MR. KRENZ said this would allow mixing zones. Juneau is one place to have polluted water and is confined, and this it throughout Southeast Alaska. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted that he saw a presentation indicating that concentrations of copper at a couple parts per billion have a tremendous impact on the ability for salmon to get around. He asked if copper, lead, zinc, and ammonia evaporate or accumulate over time when they're dumped into the ocean. MR. KRENZ replied it differs depending on the particular pollutant. Ammonia will be broken down and used by marine algae and others as a nutrient. The heavy metals don't disappear so they are of particular concern with respect to accumulation in the environment. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if copper, zinc and nickel sink to the bottom and get into shellfish and bottom feeders or continue to circulate in the ocean. 5:21:46 PM MR. KRENZ said that isn't his area of expertise, but he understands that copper sinks into the sediments. JOHN BINKLEY, Alaska Cruise Association, Fairbanks, said he represents nine cruise lines and about 100 small businesses that depend on cruise ship passengers. He said he certainly agrees with Mr. Krenz's statement that Alaska has the highest standard in the world for cruise ship wastewater discharge. Alaskans should be proud of the standards and that they were set by DEC, the independent scientists on the science panel and industry working in cooperation. As a result, industry went out and invested over $200 million in shipboard systems that achieve the highest standards achievable. That is success, he said. If the cruise line industry had been mandated to achieve an unreasonable standard, it could have spent that $200 million to reconfigure their ships to increase tankage so that they could ignore the Alaska standards and discharge beyond three miles in federal waters. "But we didn't." Alaska and the industry did it right and now the Alaska standard is what everybody else looks to. Now when these ships transit the world they discharge at an extremely high standard. In fact, some companies have installed the technology on all their ships. 5:24:54 PM MR. BINKLEY said this shows that when industry works with regulators it can improve the water quality of the ocean. He urged the committee to continue the compromise by getting rid of the five words. They set a standard that none of the other 1,000 or so Alaska discharge permits has to meet. In fact, he would challenge the sponsors of the initiative to show even one permit to discharge wastewater into U.S. waters that has to meet the "at the point of discharge" standard. This standard is unreasonable to achieve, and if the current compromise is sunsetted, there will be no incentive for industry to invest money to improve their existing systems. Instead it would be inclined to look at reconfiguring their ships to have larger holding tanks and Alaska's standards would become irrelevant because no one would apply for permit. He urged the committee to pass the House resources version of the bill. He added that he has the answers to many of the questions that Senator Wielechowski asked. 5:27:36 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE invited him back to a subsequent hearing because the committee is under time constraints today. She asked others who wanted to testify to contact her office. SENATOR STEVENS asked if it's true that shipboard copper piping is the source of most of the copper and zinc found in the discharge, and if he believes that all cruise ships would replace their copper piping if they were allowed more time. MR. BINKLEY said he is surprised at the expertise of Mr. Thoma with regard to shipboard piping. He knows that the Star Princess, which had five of the eight violations, was constructed in 2002 with stainless steel main piping and copper feeder pipes to staterooms. It is not an old ship with corroded copper pipes. He explained that anytime water runs through pipes it will pick up small parts per billion of whatever material the pipe is made of. If the pipe is galvanized the water will pick up particles of zinc, if the pipe is stainless steel the water will often pick up particles of nickel, if the pipe is copper the water will pick up particles of copper. Unless the pipe is made of glass or ceramics it will pick up minute amounts that are small enough to be difficult to measure. He offered to get the details of the piping on each of the 31 ships. CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced she would hold HB 134 in committee.