Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1996 03:37 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSHJR 59(RES) NPDES PERMIT FOR COOK INLET OIL & GAS
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:37 p.m. and brought CSHJR 59(RES) before the committee
as the first order of business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN , prime sponsor of HJR 59, said for over 30
years there has been discharge of salt water that's produced with
oil. After it goes through cleaning facilities, it's put back in
the inlet, and the process has had no adverse effect to the
environment. Recently the Environmental Protection Agency came out
with a draft set of regulations which increase both the amount of
testing required and the frequency of testing. He said this is
just another attempt of government to harass an industry that for
over 30 years has been providing the state with revenue and has
been an environmentally satisfactory operation.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN opened the hearing to public testimony and stated
testimony would be taken from witnesses waiting to testify in
Kenai.
JIM EVANS , representing the Alliance in Kenai, echoing
Representative Green's comments, agreed the oil companies have done
an outstanding job in taking care of the environment for the past
30 years. He voiced the Alliance's support for HJR 59.
BILL STAMPS , representing the Alliance in Kenai and testifying in
support of HJR 59, pointed out that Cook Inlet did not make the 303
D list, which is a section of the Federal Clean Water Act that
requires states to identify to the EPA polluted water bodies that
may need additional control measures to meet state water quality
standards. The list approved by the EPA last August lists 56
Alaska water bodies identified as impaired by the EPA and DEC. The
EPA and DEC evaluated 130 bodies and chose 56 they felt needed the
most attention and Cook Inlet was not among them. He said even
with the favorable results of these studies, there are special
interest groups that will shut down the oil industry in Cook Inlet
if they are allowed to. If they are successful, they will also
succeed in devastating the economy of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN questioned the last time there was any substantial
spill in Cook Inlet that resulted in either the killing or the
harming of wildlife or any property or fishery. MR. STAMPS
responded that he didn't know, but he pointed out that the industry
this relates to is production and the drilling industry, not the
industry of transporting the oil.
DENNIS RANDA , representing Trout Unlimited as the statewide
chairman and testifying from Kenai, said that while Cook Inlet is
a real dynamic resource, the chronic impact on a long-term industry
such as the oil industry hasn't been researched and the data hasn't
been looked at, especially considering some of the new scientific
methodology. He has concern with dumping toxins and hydrocarbons
into the Inlet and into the mixing zone. He said he would like the
committee members making the decisions in the Legislature to
understand and not just blindly rubber stamp legislation because
it's from the oil industry, which the state of Alaska is certainly
dependent upon.
Number 300
MARILYN CROCKETT , Assistant Executive Director, Alaska Oil & Gas
Association and a member of the Board of Directors for the Resource
Development Council, voiced their appreciation for EPA's efforts
in compiling the conflict permit, but they are very concerned about
the draft permit's proposed increase in the amount of monitoring
and reporting. These additional requirements will not result in
any benefit in the environment, and will, in fact, add a tremendous
cost and administrative burden not only to the operators of these
facilities but to EPA as well. It is estimated that the cost to
comply with the additional monitoring and sampling requirements
will be in excess of $1 million annually.
Number 329
LARRY LITTLE , an employee of Shell Western E&P in Kenai, stated his
support for the position expressed by Bill Stamps in his testimony.
LEONARD VERRELLI , Director, Division of Air & Water Quality,
Department of Environmental Conservation, directed attention to a
whereas clause on page 2, line 12, and clarified that DEC is not
involved in EPA's NPDES process. DEC has its own 401 certification
process which comments on the permit and provides the state
criteria which is then rolled into the NPDES permit. He said DEC
has sent a letter to EPA which basically mirrors the intent of the
resolution and states that the monitoring is excessive and it lays
out several suggestions on how to correct that, as well as
suggesting what other things can be done to assure compliance with
the permits.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if the resolution would be more accurate if
that conjunctive phrase were eliminated. MR. VERRELLI acknowledged
that it would. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed that the conjunction
was probably misleading, and he said he had no objection to its
removal.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN also suggested adding a new whereas clause saying
that DEC has supported many of these recommendations to minimize
the costs and reduce the unnecessary burden, which he thinks would
lend more support to the intent of the resolution. SENATOR TAYLOR
then moved a conceptual amendment for a new whereas clause, and to
delete the conjunctive phrase on page 2, line 12. Hearing no
objection, the Chairman stated the amendment was adopted.
NORMA CALVERT , representing Marathon Oil Company and testifying in
Juneau, said Marathon has been involved in the operations in the
Inlet for approximately 30 years, and the additional monitoring and
sampling that is called for under the proposed permit adds
additional costs to the operations without any offsetting benefit
to the environment. She said these maturing fields are very
sensitive to increased costs, and she noted Marathon has made a lot
of changes in its operations to try to reduce costs, and they are
not in favor of increasing them for something that really has no
benefit.
There being no further testimony on CSHJR 59(RES), CHAIRMAN LEMAN
asked for the pleasure of the committee.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved CSHJR 59(RES), as amended, be passed out of
committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection,
it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|