Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/10/2003 01:05 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 113-DISCHARGE PREVENTION & CONTINGENCY PLANS VICE CHAIR MASEK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act extending the renewal period for oil discharge prevention and contingency plans; and providing for an effective date." VICE CHAIR MASEK turned to public testimony. Number 0923 CHERYL FULTZ, Southeast Alaska Petroleum Resource Organization (SEAPRO), testified, noting that SEAPRO is an oil-spill response cooperative. Ms. Fultz said she was in support of HB 113. Number 1065 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt CSHB 113(O&G). There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 1094 LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), read the following from written testimony: [The] CS for HB 113 will streamline the state's permitting process by lengthening the time for renewal of oil discharge prevention and contingency plans from the current three years to five years. A five-year renewal period will streamline the review process for [the] industry while maintaining Alaska's strong spill prevention and response standards. Oil discharge prevention and contingency plans are public-noticed, reviewed, and approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Oil discharge prevention contingency plans are required for operators of oil terminals, refineries, crude-oil transmission pipelines, oil exploration and production facilities, oil tank vessels, oil barges, nontank vessels of over 400 gross tons, and railroad tank cars. There are multiple benefits from the change proposed by the bill. The bill furthers the goal of permit streamlining with no loss of environmental protection, and complements initiatives currently being undertaken by the department to shift the emphasis away from the administrative review and approval process, to field verification of response capability. The bill will significantly reduce the administrative burden on the regulated community and will shift the emphasis from paperwork to performance. The reduction in paperwork will increase stability of operators and the department to focus on spill prevention and facility operation. The change will allow operators more time to make practical enhancements to their spill prevention and response capabilities. The change will also improve environmental protection and preparedness through increased field presence and the ability to work directly with operators to ensure response readiness through onsite facility and vessel inspections, spill drills, and exercises. The change will make the state renewal cycle consistent with the five-year renewal cycle for federal oil spill contingency plans required under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, as well as those of other West Coast states. Number 1245 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Dietrick if he had previously testified before the committee on [HB 113]. MR. DIETRICK, in response, relayed his understanding that this is the first time this bill had been heard by the committee. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the committee had information that the RCAC [Regional Citizens' Advisory Council], a citizens' group established after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, is quite concerned with the legislation. She said one of the things that was mentioned was that the federal contingency plan has a one- year amendment process. She asked Mr. Dietrick if he was familiar with that, and whether that could possibly be a better solution than going to a three-year cycle. She asked how it is currently handled. MR. DIETRICK, in response, said the [state] does not participate in the annual update that's referred to by RCAC; the reviews are conducted on a federal level. He said he didn't have firsthand knowledge of how rigorous [the review is], and he suggested that the state process, as it exists currently, is better than the federal annual renewal process. Mr. Dietrick said the state basically has the "equivalent of the Evergreen process," and that any changes made to a plan must be made on a continuous, real-time basis under current state law. He suggested that one- year or three-year renewal cycles are not important; he said existing state law requires updates on a real-time basis. He told the committee that updates and notifications of nonreadiness are provided on a continuous basis, and he suggested that the state structure is superior to the annual renewal cycles under the federal system. MR. DIETRICK said the state is currently under a three-year renewal cycle but the federal renewal cycle is every five years and this legislation will change the state renewal cycle to every five years so that it is consistent with the federal renewal cycle. Number 1451 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to comments from the RCAC that expressed concerns about [best available technology (BAT)]. She asked Mr. Dietrick when the last BAT conference was. MR. DIETRICK said the regulations for BAT were put into place in 1997, and called for a conference every five years, which meant the first conference was due in 2002. He said the department had requested funds for a BAT conference and was awarded those funds last year for the purpose of initiating what would have been the first conference under the regulations. Mr. Dietrick said a workgroup had been put together and is now planning that conference with the appropriation made by the legislature last year. Number 1522 REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Mr. Dietrick if he thought switching to the five-year cycle would affect BAT [reviews]. MR. DIETRICK said the BAT analyses that have been performed are theoretical reviews; it is as important to test these as it is to review and approve them. He explained that BAT analyses do not change much over the review cycles because they're not tested and the technology development is rather slow. This change will allow [the department] to test the BAT analyses that have been provided in the individual plans and to seek corrective actions if they are flawed or have problems. He said he thought this will be an improvement that will put the BAT reviews on the same five-year cycle now that the conference is scheduled for. Number 1593 VICE CHAIR MASEK indicated HB 113 would be held for further consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|