Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/23/1996 08:20 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 23, 1996
8:20 a.m.
Kenai, Alaska
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative John Davies
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 59
Respectfully requesting the Environmental Protection Agency to
issue a final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit for Cook Inlet oil and gas operations that omits the
incremental permittee monitoring and reporting obligations
identified in the Agency's draft permit and, consistent with the
philosophy of the Agency's 1996 National Water Program Agenda,
allows the permittee to operate under pollutant discharge
monitoring and reporting requirements that are not more rigorous
than those requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits in place.
- MOVED CSHJR 59 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION: Cook Inket Oil Industry
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 59
SHORT TITLE: NPDES PERMIT FOR COOK INLET OIL & GAS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Rokeberg
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2722 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2722 (H) RESOURCES
02/23/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM KENAI AK
BILL: HB 175
SHORT TITLE: SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) AUSTERMAN,Ivan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/10/95 303 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/10/95 303 (H) FSH, RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/27/95 511 (H) COSPONSOR(S): IVAN
03/13/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/95 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
01/31/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
01/31/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/07/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/21/96 (H) FSH AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/96 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 24
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
ALICE BULLINGTON, Senior Environmental Scientist
UNOCAL
909 West 9th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 263-7832
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
JOEL COOPER
P.O. Box 3585
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6109
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 59
MARLA McPHERSON
P.O. Box 3585
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6109
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 59
PAMELA MILLER, Staff
GREENPEACE
P.O. Box 104432
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
Telephone: (907) 277-8234
NINA FAUST, Member
Kachemak Bay Conservation Society
P.O. Box 846
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6262
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
PAUL SEATON, Commercial Fisherman
P.O. Box 58360
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-6342
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
NORMA CALVERT, Lobbyist
Marathon Oil Company
P.O. Box 3128
Houston, Texas 77253
Telephone: (713) 296-3915
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 59
MARILYN CROCKETT, Assistant Executive Director
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Member, Natural Resource Council
121 West Fireweed Road, Number 207
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 59
JIM EVANS, Chairman
Kenai Chapter
Support Industry Alliance
P.O. Box 169
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4891
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
DENNIS RANDA, Member
Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited
Owner, Randa's Guide Service
P.O. Box 3055
Soldotna, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 262-9494
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 59 and CSHB 175(FSH)
BILL STAMPS, Board Member
Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Chapter Officer, Kenai Chapter, Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Anchor Point, Alaska 99556
Telephone: (907) 235-7715
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 59
KATHRYN THOMAS, Chair Elect
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 59
DENNIS STEFFY, Director
Mining and Petroleum Training Service
155 Smithway, Suite 101
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-2788
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 59
NANCY HILLSTRAND
Pioneer Alaska Fishery
P.O. Box 170
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-3877
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 59
EMILY JOHNGREN
P.O. Box 2672
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8923
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 59
TIM NAVARRE, Assemblyman
Kenai Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 92
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-4470
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
KEN TURNAGE, General Manager
VECO Corporation
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-5309
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 59
JOHN DONOHUE, General Manager
UNOCAL
909 West 9th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
TERRY KOVACEVICH, Operations Superintendent
Marathon Alaska
P.O. BOX 196168
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephones: (907) 564-6325
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
DAVID PERKINS, Manager
Marathon Alaska
P.O. BOX 196168
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephones: (907) 564-6325
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
BETTY J. GLICK, President
Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council
910 Highland Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611-8033
Telephone: (907) 283-7222
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
AL HASTINGS, Director of Oil and Gas
Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
215 Fidalgo Road
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-5223
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
DREW SCALZI, President
Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly
144 North Binkley
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
JOHN WILLIAMS, Mayor
City of Kenai
210 Fidlago Avenue
Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794
Telephone: (907) 283-7539
POSITION STATEMENT: Presentation on Cook Inlet Oil Industry
GARY E. HULL, Guide
P.O. Box 1964
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5661
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
JIM RUSK, Guide
Jim Rusk Fishing
P.O. Box 1127
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 262-8469
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
JOE HARDY, Guide
P.O. Box 3391
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9881
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
STEVE TUENSTRUP, Commercial Fisherman
4928 Beaver Loop
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-3482
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
TERRY BRASEL
P.O. Box 1094
Sterling, Alaska 99672
Telephone: (907) 260-3124
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
PAUL DALE
Salmon Producers Alliance
P.O. Box 701
Kenai, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 776-5342
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
TYLAND VANLIER
P.O. Box 2357
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-1521
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
JAMES EVENSON
P.O. Box 324
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-8060
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
JEFF KING
174 East Redoubt
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4564
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 175(FSH)
TAPE 96-21, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:20 a.m. in Kenai, Alaska. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Green, Austerman, Long and
Nicholia. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Homer,
Glennallen, Petersburg, Sitka, Valdez, Fairbanks, Kodiak and
Palmer.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the agenda was HJR 59 and HB 175.
HJR 59 NPDES PERMIT FOR COOK INLET OIL & GAS
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, said
HJR 59 states the legislature's support of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for the Cook Inlet oil operations. He said
the NPDES permit is a federal permit for the Cook Inlet operators
and is currently being renewed. He said, as part of this renewal
process, the EPA has included some conditions to the permit,
increasing the monitoring and reporting obligations. He said HJR
59 supports the NPDES as it exists now, without those additional
requirements.
ALICE BULLINGTON, Senior Environmental Scientist, UNOCAL, was first
to testify. She said the NPDES permits for oil and gas facilities
have received attention from the legislature, the general public
and from industry. She said the regulation of water quality, and
its impact, has been a hot topic throughout the United States. She
said her discussion would explain the history of the NPDES permit
system, how it is applicable to every part of our society, and she
would conclude with how it affects the oil industry in the Cook
Inlet.
MS. BULLINGTON said NPDES, is a permit system that was created
under the Clean Water Act back in the 1970s when the general public
became alarmed at the number of polluted water bodies in the lower
48 states. She said catastrophic events, such as rivers catching
on fire, caused Congress to regulate the discharge of pollutants
into the water system through the NPDES permit. She said Congress
did not understand, at the time, how to regulate water. She said
Congress recognized that banning all pollutants from the water
would result in the loss of jobs and create an economic burden for
urban areas. The goal of Congress, in the Clean Water Act, was to
have fishable and swimmable rivers by 1983. She said society has
made progress in that goal and she noted that there are many water
bodies that have recovered from past pollution. She said a second
goal of the Clean Water Act was to eliminate discharges by 1985.
She said the reason this provision was included was because, at the
time, there was not a lot of knowledge about environmental science.
Environmental science tells us what kind of impacts harm the
environment as well as how much discharge is and is not acceptable.
The goal of no discharge has not been met.
MS. BULLINGTON cited examples in Alaska, such as the municipality
of Anchorage, city of Kenai and the city of Homer, which currently
have NPDES permits for their municipal sewage treatment discharges.
She said eliminating discharge entirely would create an economic
burden. Congress asked the EPA to take a look at the types of
technologies that were available, how effectively it would treat
the discharges and asked the EPA to provide a cost analysis
determining the economic burden on industry and cities. Based on
those two factors, the EPA developed permit limitations with the
end goal being an implementation of technology that was
economically feasible and would allow for, an eventual, zero
discharge.
MS. BULLINGTON said in the last 20 years, it has been recognized
that there is no need to eliminate discharges to clean water
bodies. She said treated sewage discharge has no impact on the
environment, even though cities are continuing to develop towards
a zero discharge goal. She said the municipality of Anchorage,
which treats its sewage less thoroughly than the city of Kenai, has
had no environmental impact due to its discharges.
MS. BULLINGTON said the NPDES permit is formulated under the Clean
Water Act and it is working towards the zero discharge goal. She
said the issue has been diverted from one of environmental impact
to an analysis of available technology and their associated costs.
A question has arisen from this policy, asking whether regulation
of industries and municipalities should occur if no environmental
benefits are being seen. She said the NPDES permit in the Cook
Inlet, for oil and gas facilities, is an excellent example where
zero discharge is not necessary because the additional costs will
not benefit the environment.
MS. BULLINGTON said the current oil and gas NPDES permit was issued
in 1986 and expired in 1991. Due to the work load of the EPA, the
draft permit was issued in September 1995 and added that hopefully
more efficient, stream-lined methods will be developed for this
permit process. She said the current NPDES permit has successfully
protected Cook Inlet. She referred to recent studies, completed in
the Cook Inlet regarding water quality, sediment, and biota there.
She added that, in addition to those recent studies, 80 other
studies have been conducted on the biota, water quality and
sediment since the late 1960s. She said, one of the later studies
was able to compare the results from the 1993 studies to studies
that were preformed by the MMS in the 1970s with no notable
difference between them.
MS. BULLINGTON said one of the most interesting studies, preformed
within the last few years, was done by Marathon and UNOCAL and
targeted the most significant produced-water discharge in Cook
Inlet. She said the Trading Bay production facility, accounts for
approximately 95 percent of discharges into Cook Inlet. She said
the study examined whether the water quality standards were being
met and whether there was compliance with the mixing zone
requirements. A mixing zone is an area around a discharge outfall
where you can exceed water quality standards as long as the whole
water body is not being harmed. She said the mixing zone utilizes
the mixing dynamics of a water body and does not harm the water
body. She said this study found, within the 750 meter mixing zone,
no violations of water quality standards were found within 50
meters of the discharge. She said compliance with the mixing zones
is being met. She said the computer models that determined how
much dilution was occurring in Cook Inlet significantly
underestimated what was occurring in that water body.
MS. BULLINGTON said the proposed NPDES permit significantly
increases existing permit limitations. The proposed permit becomes
much more stringent regarding major discharge. She said most of
the proposed requirements are 47 percent to 50 percent more
stringent than the existing permit limitations. She said there has
been a 300 percent increase in the administrative burden associated
with the additional monitoring and reporting that will be needed by
the new requirements to the NPDES. She added that additional
planning documents and general studies have also been proposed by
the EPA. She mentioned the irony of these requirements as there
has been a lack of evidence on the impact to the environment and
the current EPA policy which seeks to reduce, by 20 percent, the
amount of monitoring and reporting being done by NPDES permitees.
MS. BULLINGTON mentioned the two primary discharges in the Cook
Inlet. One of them is the produced water discharge. She said
produced water comes from a reservoir, and is water that has been
in the reservoir for millions of years. In general terms, the
water has been there since the formation of oil and gas. She said
the concentration of metals and hydrocarbons are consistent over
time and that monitoring provides no useful information. She made
the analogy to the requirement and requiring that her height be
measured on a daily basis. She said the proposed NPDES permit
would implement three new limitations in addition to the two
established limitations. She said there is more stringent
monitoring of produced water discharges than any other oil and gas
facility in the United States which is allowed to discharge. The
EPA based these requirements on metals and hydrocarbon data in
produced water.
MS. BULLINGTON said another primary discharge, in the Cook Inlet,
is the sanitary effluent. She said EPA has required 50 percent
more stringent requirements on two of the parameters that are
regulated and have increased the monitoring from once a month to
once a week. The EPA notes, in the NPDES permit, that sanitary
discharge is not harmful. She said that the current limitations in
the Cook Inlet are almost half of what the municipality of
Anchorage is restricted to and the new limitations would be a third
of that. She said the municipality of Anchorage does annual impact
studies of sewage discharge on Cook Inlet and has found no impact
from the 30 million gallons of discharged sewage. She said UNOCAL
told the state of Alaska and the EPA that there has never been an
identified technology that can fit on a platform and achieve these
limits. Recently, the state of Alaska has agreed with UNOCAL on
this point. In the state's certification of the NPDES permit, they
asked the EPA to delete these new requirements.
MS. BULLINGTON said the NPDES has received more public comment than
any other permit in Region 10. In September, the NPDES draft
permit was issued and Cook Inlet Region Citizens Advisory Council
(CIRCAC), the local watchdog monitoring group, held a workshop
regarding the permit. Two hearings were held, in Anchorage and
Kenai, by EPA on the NPDES permit. The public comment period on
the NPDES permit was extended until the end of January. The Cook
Inlet Keeper Program, a new environmental group based in Homer,
held a workshop in late January followed by a hearing in Homer.
Currently, the EPA is in the process of reviewing, the over 400
comments that were issued on this permit, three-fourths of which
oppose the new NPDES requirements. She said EPA will respond to
each and every comment, and that likely there will be another
comment period. In addition, changes in the proposed permit will
cause the whole process to occur again. A final NPDES permit will
be issued between August and December of 1996. After that time
period the permit is open to litigation by the oil industry or
other parties who disagree with the permit requirements.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that UNOCAL would want everything to
remain the same, as things are going well within the environment.
MS. BULLINGTON said the three main points she wanted to emphasize
included the fact that the oil industry has been in Cook Inlet for
30 years, there is no evidence of any impacts occurring in the
inlet and lastly that the EPA, the President and Congress have
recognized the burden that the NPDES places on industry and have
indicated that there should be reductions in this burden.
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked if there were any incident that
occurred in the Cook Inlet which has caused more stringent
recommendations to be placed in the proposed permit.
MS. BULLINGTON said no, and added that the way in which the Clean
Water Act is written, the focus is on technology to reduce the
discharge over time which caused the requirements to be more
stringent, regardless of environmental impact.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN asked if the EPA came out with
anything in writing as to why they have set up different
requirements for different industries.
MS. BULLINGTON said the requirements go back to the way the Clean
Water Act was written, which places the emphasis on technology and
economics. She said the EPA looks at each entity differently when
determining the NPDES requirements because the oil industry has
different economics than municipalities. The EPA has broken the
entities down by category and include mining, oil, municipalities
and the timber industry. She said a balance across the scale is
not seen because different industries are able to support different
levels of technology.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if this was due to financial
capabilities.
MS. BULLINGTON said when the EPA becomes aware of new technologies,
they estimate the economic impacts on industry and put it out for
comment.
JOEL COOPER testified via teleconference from Homer. He said he was
against HJR 59 and added that the NPDES permit is not written in a
strong enough manner. He said a legislative resolution should be
written that listed zero discharge level as its goal. He said the
waters of Cook Inlet must be protected and the importance of
maintaining clean water must be understood. He referred to the
studies done in the Cook Inlet and said there are areas that
haven't been sampled where he believed the pollutants might be
settling out. He said, as the oil wells get older, 20 times more
formation waters are being produced. He believed this fact meant
that stricter technologies should be implemented to handle this
change. He said the legislature should encourage the
municipalities to meet the zero discharge limit. He said if zero
discharge limits cannot be met, we should do the best we can.
MARLA McPHERSON testified via teleconference from Homer. She said
that if pollutants are being discharged into the water, it seems
both necessary and responsible that reporting and monitoring
obligations should be increased. She said it will give industry a
good and responsible reputation. She said if the EPA is not
meeting the 25 percent reduction goal of monitoring the Cook Inlet
industries, there must be a reason. She suggested that perhaps the
industry has not been responsible in the past with discharges. She
said currently, the industry is allowed to discharge 400 million
gallons of waste per year and last year they reported having over
4,000 violations of the Clean Water Act. She said, in Seattle,
UNOCAL is being sued for illegal discharge. She said the EPA
recognizes the importance of monitoring and reporting in order to
prevent illegal discharges.
MS. McPHERSON reiterated the goal of the Clean Water Act was to
meet zero discharge by 1985. She said, because the goal was not
met, it does not mean that we should change the goal. She said
there is not currently enough science to declare that the discharge
is harmless. She said it is not known what the long term effects
of chronic exposure to low levels of toxins are and the effects on
the food chain. Current studies have not been up for peer review
and there are uncertainties in their findings.
PAMELA MILLER, staff member, GREENPEACE, testified via
teleconference from Homer. She said the NPDES permit is a license
to pollute. She said the industries in the Cook Inlet and around
the Kenai Peninsula have not proven themselves responsible as
evidenced by the thousands of violations the oil industry has
committed during the last nine years of their NPDES permit. She
said her organization believes the NPDES permit to be lax and
unenforced. She said other oil industries in the United States are
required to meet zero discharge standards and Cook Inlet is the
only exception to this standard. She said technology exists to
protect against the impacts of discharges and protect the
environment.
MS. MILLER said we have an incomplete understanding of the complex
physical oceanography and the potential for bio-accumulation of
these toxic substances away from the sampled areas. She said the
studies have only looked at a handful of sampling stations in a
complex body of water. She added that the Kenai Peninsula
delegation wrote a letter stating that regulations for the oil and
gas industry must be derived from scientific measurement and
observation.
MS. MILLER said she was disappointed by HJR 59 and by the
legislature's response reiterating UNOCAL's position. She said an
independent scientist, Dr. Robert Howarth from Cornell University,
reviewed the draft. Dr. Howarth concluded that the scientific
basis for issuing a proposed NPDES permit is (indiscernible) and
inadequate. His report states that the current studies are
inconclusive and that the actual risk can not be determined and
likely to be far greater than stated. He said the monitoring
standards, required by the EPA in the draft permit, are inadequate.
She asked the legislature to reconsider HJR 59, and asked the EPA
to require the oil industry to meet zero discharge limits.
NINA FAUST, Member, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, and former
school teacher, testified via teleconference from Homer. She said
her organization is against HJR 59 and interested in preserving the
water quality and the economic subsistence livelihoods which the
residents depend on. She said Kachemak Bay and Kamishak Bay may be
depositories for sediments that flow in the current from the upper
inlet. She said in the lower part of the inlet, there are gyres
which may concentrate pollutants. She said the drilling rigs in
the upper inlet are permitted to discharge produced waters and
drilling sludge into the inlet which include some of the worst
types of toxins. Her organization feels that monitoring should
occur where the sediments are collecting and possibly
concentrating. She said 50 years of discharging may have long term
and, as of yet, undetermined effects. She said it makes economic
sense to prevent pollution, rather than have to deal with the
consequences later.
MS. FAUST said Kachemak Bay Conservation Society supports zero
discharge. She said the Cook Inlet is the only water body where
this type of NPDES permit is allowed. She said pollution within
this water body has been occurring for 30 years despite the
enactment of the Clean Water Act. She said new drilling rigs
should have zero discharge and that requirement would eliminate
monitoring. She said her global coastal management program has
recommended that new rigs meet zero discharge. She said, in
regards to HJR 59, monitoring and recording should not be reduced
and that zero discharge should be the goal. She reiterated the
unknown affects of pollutants and that technology is available.
PAUL SEATON, Commercial Fisherman, testified via teleconference
from Homer. He was against HJR 59 and said discharges deemed
acceptable have, sometimes, been found to be harmful to the
environment causing expensive clean-ups. He reiterated the point
about the NPDES permit being allowed here and not in other places.
He was concerned about Sale 149 and the effect of this permit on
drilling mud. He said Pacific Cod tends to be found in areas where
the drilling mud settles and concentrates and that any impact on
the quality of those fish would result in economic hardship. He
referred to a part of UNOCAL's testimony regarding the fact that
Congress did not intend for zero discharge and asked Ms. Bullington
to provide the legislative history to document this statement.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that HJR 59 requires monitoring and
reporting requirements remain in current form, not increased by 400
percent. He said the Alaskan Pacific Cod's reputation as being the
best fish goes along with the fact that the waters remain clean,
despite concern over drilling mud. He said the state of Alaska
might be taking themselves out of the competitive market by
allowing these additional NPDES requirements.
MS. BULLINGTON said Cook Inlet is not the only oil drilling
platform which allows zero discharge. She said there are hundreds
of oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico which have NPDES
permits allowing discharges to occur. She said the exception,
regarding Cook Inlet, is its being listed as a coastal area. She
said coastal areas, as defined by the EPA, are low energy, shallow
environments with large resident species. She said Cook Inlet does
not fit this definition, but it is included in this definition
because of how the EPA marked off the map. She said the Cook Inlet
has fifteen offshore platforms and three onshore facilities
compared with the hundreds in the Gulf of Mexico.
TAPE 96-21, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. BULLINGTON said zero discharge is not the issue. She said the
issue is one of whether the discharge is having an impact on the
environment. She said, during the evaluation of the Trading Bay
discharge, it was found that within 50 meters of the discharge
outfall there was not significant levels of contamination. She
said those areas were within compliance of water quality standards.
She said pollutants are not going to be found 60 miles or 80 miles
away, if you do not find them 50 meters away. She said pollutants
do not jump across areas.
MS. BULLINGTON said UNOCAL was fined for approximately 300
violations occurring over a five year period. She said UNOCAL
provided evidence to EPA that the agency has never identified a
technology that could meet the proposed limits, let alone the
existing limits. She said, UNOCAL learned, that 1986 was the time
that they should have shown this evidence and because UNOCAL
didn't, they were found to be in violation. She said, UNOCAL has
resolved this issue by zero discharging their sanitary effluent.
She said the cost of zero discharge is significant, especially when
it is considered that the Anchorage limits are higher than any of
the exceedencies that occurred from the platforms.
MS. BULLINGTON said she is opposed to the issue of implementing
zero discharge because there is technology available to do so. She
said zero discharge should only be required if there is an
environmental impact. She referred to the reported mentioned by
Pamela Miller, and said she would supply documentation made in
response to that report, but in summation said that Dr. Howarth
used 15 year old information.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Ms. Bullington was given additional time in
response to issues that were raised in her testimony.
NORMA CALVERT, Lobbyist, Marathon Oil Company, was next to testify.
She said her company supports the position as stated by Ms.
Bullington. She said the oil industry's environmentally sound
operations have been proven over time and urged support for HJR 59.
MARILYN CROCKETT, Assistant Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA) and Member, Resource Development Council (RDC),
was next to testify. She read from a sponsor statement, "let me
begin by saying that we do appreciate the significant efforts
required of EPA Region 10 in compiling this complex permit. The
permit does provide for the continued ability to discharge produced
water and mud and cuttings. A zero discharge requirement would
force the early closure of many operations because of high costs.
However, we are very concerned about the draft permit'
s proposed increase in the amount of monitoring and reporting.
These additional requirement s will not result in any benefit to
the environment, but they will add cost and administrative burden
not only to the operators, but to EPA as well. Based on very
conservative assumptions, the draft permit requires monitoring the
largest number of parameters ever in such a permit. Additionally,
the frequency of monitoring is extreme compared to similar permits.
We've estimated that to comply with these requirements will require
the expenditure of $1 million annually. Changing regulations and
requirements such as these pose special challenges for these mature
fields which are under increasing pressure to maximize production
while minimizing expenditure sin order to remain economical.
It is somewhat ironic that EPA would propose significant increases
in monitoring and reporting, given the objectives contained in
EPA's 1996 National Water Program Agenda as described in HJR 59.
The elements of the '96 agenda are not new, but rather are an
extension of President Clinton and Vice President Gore's March 16,
1995, report entitled `Reinventing Environmental Regulation.'
Oil and gas exploration and production has occurred in Cook Inlet
for almost 30 years. This development has positively affect the
lives of all Alaskans and in particular the residents of
southcentral Alaska. Without it, consumers would not be able to
enjoy the benefits of low-cost natural gas and electricity. The
development has coexisted with one of the state's most productive
commercial salmon fisheries and active sport fisheries, provided
jobs for the area's residents and significantly contributed to the
Peninsula's tax base. They've been conducted in a safe and
environmentally sound manner over the life of the development.
AOGA and RDC commend the legislature for consideration of HJR 59.
We would like to recommend tow minor technical amendments which I
have attached to my copy of the testimony. I'd be happy to answer
any questions you may have about these recommended amendments."
MS. CROCKETT said on page one, line eight of HJR 59, "Cook Inlet,"
be inserted at the end of line seven so that it reads, "not more
rigorous than those requirements of the Cook Inlet NPDES permit in
place." She added, that for Cook Inlet area, the NPDES permit is
a single permit for all of the operations in the area.
She asked for the same change to be made on page three, line 12.
MS. CROCKETT said on page two, line 14 and line 16, there is a
reference that the NPDES permit covers Cook Inlet oil and gas
productions, which it does, but she added that the permit also
includes exploration activities as well. The recommendation is
that the word, "production," be deleted from both lines 14 and 16.
JIM EVANS, Chairman, Kenai Chapter, Support Industry Alliance, was
next to testify. He supported the testimony of Ms. Bullington and
said there should be no changes made to the NPDES permit currently
in place. He said the current NPDES permit has not shown any
detrimental affects to the Cook Inlet, based on the current, on-
going information.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES made a motion to adopt the amendments
are presented by Ms. Crockett. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there
were any objections to the proposed amendments to HJR 59. Hearing
none the amendments were so adopted to CSHJR 59 (RES) by the House
Standing Committee on Resources.
DENNIS RANDA, Member, Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited, and
fishing guide was next to testify. He said his organization
consists of 550 members statewide and said the Cook Inlet ecosystem
is complex. He said there are "giant holes in the returns of
salmon to Cook Inlet." He said there is no explanation for what
happened to the Chinook salmon from the Upper Susitna drainage,
those salmon are gone and maybe those problems occur because of
this issue. He said he could not state this accusation
scientifically and added that he didn't believe we would ever have
the money to figure it out.
MR. RANDA said he hoped the committee would remain objective and
said he didn't think that Ms. Bullington should have received the
opportunity to rebut the testimony of other people.
MR. RANDA said, "we are talking about dead zones, killing zones
here when we look at this NPDES permit and this mixing zone
concept." The Trading Bay facility has a 16 inch pipe with a dead
zone of a 300 meter radius which means that they are going to be
able to kill anything that moves within that radius. He did not
say that the industry is directly threatening his job, but there is
a reason for the NPDES process. He referred to a study, sponsored
by ARCO, which showed that the Cook Inlet area has significance in
providing habitat for salmon. These salmon use the estuary to grow
before they move out to the sea. He reiterated the 300 meter
radius killing zone.
MR. RANDA said there is evidence of accumulation in the sediments
around these areas. East forelands has a toxic level which has
shown up in studies. He mentioned the problem with only using 12
sampling sites, when you have a mixing zone of nearly a thousand
feet. He said in winter you do not have the flushing action
because the low water is freezing in the rivers and the pollutants
just come and go. He said studies show an impact, and give us the
opportunity to find the depositional zones where contaminants come
out of the pipe and grab on to sediments. He said they should show
up with the mixing zone, but added that the Cook Inlet has a
volatile water system.
MR. RANDA said that increased development will be occurring from
Lease Sale 149 and questioned whether this was being considered.
He mentioned that this is a federal government and questioned the
involvement by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked about his reference to "killing
zones."
MR. RANDA said if the public were allowed to know how much
effluence that the municipalities put into Cook Inlet, we would be
more concerned than the amount allowed by the NPDES permit. He
said the municipalities are given a "free ride."
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN mentioned his experience in the fishing
industry and the requirements made by EPA. He said he found it
difficult to judge the value of environmental clean-up even with
his direct experience. He asked for clarification of toxins in the
sediments.
MR. RANDA said there were toxins found in the pilot studies of the
Cook Inlet Region Citizens Advisory Council, Environmental
Monitoring Committee, which were conducted around Cook Inlet
between 1993 and 1995 showing evidence of toxicity in the Trading
Bay area and one year in the east forelands area. He said he
didn't think that human waste is a problem, but the problem is one
of the household chemicals contained in the sewage.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the toxins he was referring to
could be traced back to the oil rigs.
MR. RANDA said the source of the toxins was unknown, but said it
was in the area of the oil rigs.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for specific information regarding these
studies.
MR. RANDA referred to the study conducted by A. D. Little in 1993
and Parametrix Lab in 1995. He repeated that these pilot studies
cannot trace the toxins to a specific location. He said the "dead
zone" he referred to is referred to as a mixing zone by the NPDES
permit. He said those areas are allowed a higher toxicity than
that which would sustain life.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the mixing zone is a place where the water
is allowed to mix with the native waters, and added that it is not
a dead zone.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the assertion made that the mixing zone
killed off fish and animal life was new to him. He said it was the
first time he had ever heard of it in all his work regarding
resource issues.
BILL STAMPS, Board Member, Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Chapter Officer, Kenai Chapter, Alaska Support Industry Alliance,
was next to testify. He said the six studies of the water quality
in Cook Inlet have shown no evidence of harm done by the oil
industry in 30 years of operation and discharging into the waters.
He said three of these studies were conducted by CIRCAC, one oil
industry, one mineral management service and one by GREENPEACE. He
said the results of the GREENPEACE study were not published and
inferred that if it had been different from those other studies,
then it would have been published.
MR. STAMPS said the oil industry is important to the Kenai
Peninsula's economy as is the fishing industry. He reiterated the
record fish harvest in recent years. He said the decline in the
Susitna fishery might not have been managed in the same manner as
the Kenai fishery and that this was, perhaps, the reason for its
decline. He said in 1994, the oil and gas industry accounted for
$292.3 million in revenue for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. He said
in 1994, the top nine out of ten taxpayers in the borough were oil
and gas companies which accounted for approximately 33 percent of
the borough's assessed value. He said these figures were obtained
from the Department of Labor and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
MR. STAMPS said special interest groups will attempt to shut down
the oil industry in Cook Inlet and deplete the economy of the
region. He said in letters he has written to the EPA he has asked
them to continue monitoring the waters of Cook Inlet. He asked the
EPA to consider the following, "the trustees, through the oil
industry, for discharges in the Cook Inlet, will the trustees file
a lawsuit against the fish processors, will they sue the
municipalities of Anchorage and/or the municipalities of Kenai,
Soldotna and Homer because each, individual municipality,
discharges more in the Cook Inlet than all the oil facilities
combined. Or will the trustees in GREENPEACE continue to single
out the oil industry."
MR. STAMPS said there is no evidence that the discharge by the
industry or the municipalities are harmful. He said zero discharge
is not economically feasible for any of the discharges. He did not
support any action that would cause additional or more stringent
standards or reporting requirements to be placed on the oil
industry. He supported HJR 59.
KATHRYN THOMAS, Chair Elect, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, was
next to testify. She read from a sponsor statement, "Our
organization represents a direct membership of approximately 700
businesses and an indirect membership of more than 6,000 Alaskan
firms. Most of our members are small business people with 20 or
more fewer employees. Founded in 1953, we represent Alaskans from
Barrow to Ketchikan.
I am here to speak with you because we are the voice of Alaska
business."
MS. THOMAS, said she was reading from a presentation made to the
EPA in Homer on January 25, 1996, "in recent years, Alaska has seen
huge business reversals in major industries due to actions taken by
the federal government. The timber industry has closed mills and
laid off hundreds of employees because of federal action limiting
the use of Alaskan timber for logging. The fishing industry has
seen recent federal action which has halted commercial salmon
fishing in Southeast Alaska because the Pacific Northwest and
Canada were suffering major salmon shortages. Alaska, on the other
hand has managed its resource to see record returns in its waters.
We believe that Alaskan's are competent in the care and management
of their resources. We ask that you, the EPA, recognize that the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation does not include
Cook Inlet on the list of impaired water bodies in Alaska, as
defined under the federal Clean Water Act.
The Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, has a commitment to create a
prosperous Alaskan economy; to reduce the cost of doing business in
Alaska and to the development of Alaska's vast mineral resource
wealth while balancing sound environmental considerations.
For 30 years the oil platforms in Cook Inlet have provided jobs for
Alaskans, heated our homes, provided a source of low cost power to
keep our businesses competitive and more profitable, and
contributed to the tax base that supports our government and
schools. And this is a real Alaskan success story, because the
recent environmental studies have shown that the major contribution
to our economy, that this major contribution to our economy has
been achieved without any adverse impact to our Cook Inlet waters.
The business community in Alaska is puzzled as to why the federal
government wants to fix something that is not broken and that has
performed so well. We ask that you recognize that the Alaska State
Chamber of Commerce feels that additional stringent requirement of
the NPDES permitting is not warranted by the data that is
reflected in the most recent studies of Cook Inlet waters. By not
recognizing the environmental success of the development of Cook
Inlet's oil resource, the federal government will cause a loss of
revenue to large and small businesses and Alaskan will lose jobs
that we cannot replace from other sectors."
MS. THOMAS presented a newspaper article from the Peninsula
Clarion, dated February 23, 1996, to be inserted in the committee
packet.
DENNIS STEFFY, Director, Mining and Petroleum Training Service, was
next to testify. He said he was representing himself, but has been
actively involved in the oil and gas industry as well as in
education with the University of Alaska during the past 20 years.
He supported HJR 59 and encouraged its passage.
MR. STEFFY said there is no scientific way to determine the source
of any petroleum oils and lubricants. He said over the years he
has spent a lot of time on the waters of Cook Inlet and has seen
direct evidence of petroleum oils and lubricants in the water, but
in all likelihood it probably is not directly traceable to the oil
industry. He said he would take any such study with a cautious
grain of salt because the source cannot be identified.
MR. STEFFY said, in his education career, a large number of people
in the oil industry were trained in the reduction and the
elimination of pollution. He said people were trained on
floatation cells and pre-water knock-outs on behalf of the
industry. He said those curriculums are available and added that
those curriculums, developed by the oil industry, are directed at
environmental issues. He said a tremendous amount of attention has
been given in response to the environment, in particular the off-
shore operators in Cook Inlet. He mentioned that the quality of
water of the Cook Inlet is as important to the oil industry as it
is to anyone else. He mentioned his experience as a commercial
fisherman and that the fish in the Cook Inlet have not been
impacted.
TAPE 96-22, SIDE A
Number 000
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaska Fishery, testified via
teleconference from Homer. She mentioned her experience in the
fishing industry and the importance of water quality. She asked
that the oil industry maintain water quality. She mentioned the
accumulation of heavy toxins, not the discharges, but in the
drilling mud. She said we should do whatever we can to protect the
waters. She said the crab, shrimp, clams, and scallops species in
the Cook Inlet have been impaired and those fisheries have been
closed for 15 years.
EMILY JOHNGREN testified via teleconference from Homer. She said
she was opposed to HJR 59. She added that she agreed with Mr.
Cooper, Ms. McPherson and Ms. Miller's testimony and the other
witnesses who testified from Homer.
TIM NAVARRE said he was representing himself. He said the economic
concerns must also be addressed in this issue, especially if there
is no scientific evidence which shows a negative impact from the
oil industry. He said the loss of the oil industry would create a
economic burden around Cook Inlet. He supported HJR 59 as it looks
at the whole picture. He believed that the 30 years of testing and
the presence of the oil industry in Cook Inlet shows that it has
not had a detrimental affect.
KEN TURNAGE, General Manager, VECO, said he was representing
himself. He said he was part of an effort to made recommendations
to the EPA. He read the petition, "we the undersigned citizens of
the Kenai Peninsula area feel that there are adequate restrictions
and safeguards under the existing NPDES permit. No additional
testing or monitoring should be required as there will be no
environmental benefit derived through more onerous restrictions.
Mixing zones are an intricate part of the economic viability of oil
and gas facilities. Since all scientific data and studies
conducted, to date, indicated that no environmental harm has
occurred in over 30 years of oil and gas development in the Cook
Inlet the practice of mixing zones should be maintained. The
economic viability of the Kenai Peninsula area would be unjustly
threatened by imposing of increased regulatory restrictions on an
already overly regulated industry. We are pleased to see that the
EPA has recognized that there is no significant evidence to warrant
zero discharge and propose a (indiscernible). The livelihoods of
thousands of residents are at stake and we encourage the EPA to
protect jobs and the economic stability of the area. No scientific
environmental evidence has presented to suggest otherwise as
required."
MR. TURNAGE said in only a week, he collected 500 signatures.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that HJR 59, as amended, be
moved with individual recommendations. Hearing no objections CSHJR
59 (RES) was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources.
PRESENTATION: COOK INLET OIL INDUSTRY
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the next item on the agenda would
be an overview on the state of the Cook Inlet oil industry by the
residents.
JOHN DONOHUE, General Manager, UNOCAL, said there were two
different types of operations in Cook Inlet, oil and gas. He said
his presentation would includes the scope, the health and the
potential of oil and gas operations in the Cook Inlet. He said
presently there are about 1,500 employees, primarily on the Kenai
Peninsula, who make their living from oil and gas. He said the
industry spends about $250 million to maintain the oil and gas
industry in Cook Inlet.
MR. DONOHUE said 600 million cubic feet per day of gas is being
produced and just over 40,000 barrels of oil. He compared this
amount with the million barrels of oil being produced in the North
Slope. He showed a slide of a map listing the gas producing
properties in Cook Inlet. It showed the city of Kenai, the UNOCAL
chemical plant, Phillips plant, the major fields including the
Marathon Kenai field, Beaver Creek, UNOCAL's Swanson River,
Steelhead Platform which is producing gas from the drilling gas
sands at the McArthur River field and the Phillip's North Cook
Inlet field, ARCO's Beluga River field, and a couple of smaller
onshore fields operated by UNOCAL.
MR. DONOHUE said the gas producers include ARCO, Marathon, Phillips
and UNOCAL. He said the users of gas in Cook Inlet are the
Phillips Petroleum plant, UNOCAL fertilizer plant and the utilities
of Southcentral Alaska. He said gas industry started in the late
1950s with "big jumps" in the late 1950s and early 1970s as UNOCAL
opened their chemical plant and Phillips opened their liquid
natural gas (LNG) plant. He said the gas industry in the Cook
Inlet is healthy from the point of view of the producers, the
utilities, Phillips, and UNOCAL.
MR. DONOHUE said there are four fields producing oil in the Cook
Inlet including Swanson River which is onshore. He said the fields
offshore include the Middle Ground Shoal, Granite Point field and
McArthur River field. He said west McArthur field is operated by
Stewart Petroleum production on the west side. He said east side
oil refers to everything that comes on the east side of the inlet
including Swanson River and Middle Ground Shoal field ending up at
the Tesoro refinery. The west side includes Granite Point and
McArthur field and comes down the Cook Inlet pipeline to Drift
River where it is picked up by tanker and taken out of state.
MR. DONOHUE said all of the oil fields are operated by UNOCAL,
except for two platforms which produce from the central part of
Middle Ground Shoal and Stewart Petroleum's production. He asked
the committee to keep in mind the infrastructure as it is a
critical part of the oil production in the Cook Inlet. He said the
oil producers include SHELL, UNOCAL and Stewart. He added that
UNOCAL also produces oil for Mobile and Marathon, as they are
working partners of UNOCAL in various parts of the Cook Inlet. He
remarked that the platform the committee viewed on Thursday was
partly owned by Mobile.
MR. DONOHUE referred to a graph of oil production which showed oil
production ramping up very rapidly in the mid to late 1960s and
reached its peak in 1969, at just under 175,000 barrels per day and
has declined to about 40,000 barrels per day. He said the oil
industry is not a healthy industry, but said the goal is to improve
this industry. He said these fields were first discovered in the
1950s and cited an axiom of the oil and gas industry that once
production begins, you are in decline. He said they are high cost
fields with low production.
MR. DONOHUE said UNOCAL has reduced their total cost of operations
in the field, within the last three years, by 30 percent. He said
increasing production amounts must be targeted. He said capital
costs are high, with half of those costs spent on new development
every year. He said the average oil decline in Cook Inlet is about
18 percent, so every four years you have to reproduce what you have
on production.
MR. DONOHUE said any regulation implemented must be effective,
efficient and cost effective. He said oil production needs new
discoveries and needs to attract new companies to Cook Inlet. He
said the state's role in the oil industry is being realized with
the passage of HB 207 last year. He said UNOCAL is working with
the state in formulating an application to use for royalty relief
in Cook Inlet. He said incentives need to occur in order to drill
more wells and add new players to increase exploration.
MR. DONOHUE said there is a need for consistent and systematic
lease sales in Cook Inlet. He said changes need to be made in the
best interest finding process so that a comprehensive study can be
done and be used for five years, rather than "reinventing the wheel
every single time." He said oil and gas production provide
employment to the residents, create tax revenue for the state and
the borough, and provide fuel for the community. He said most of
the electricity produced in Southcentral Alaska is produced from
Cook Inlet natural gas. He added that a significant portion of the
gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel used in Southcentral Alaska is
refined in Cook Inlet by Tesoro and that the oil and gas industry
in Cook Inlet also affects the Fairbanks region.
MR. DONOHUE said a partnership between industry, contract industry,
state, local officials and public is needed to keep the oil
industry in the Cook Inlet.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to a slide showing a downward curve
reaching towards the zero mark.
MR. DONOHUE said the spike in production of oil went up very fast
and then came down very rapidly. He said this is typical of fields
this size, and added that the largest field in Cook Inlet is
500,000 barrels per day. He said a system which taps this field
will result in a graph that looks this way. He said the Prudhoe
Bay production peaked and remained peaked at a high level because
of the transportation factor.
TERRY KOVACEVICH, Operations Superintendent, Marathon Alaska, was
next to testify. He referred to a map which showed the Cook Inlet
oil and gas fields along with the pipeline network. He said,
currently, Marathon operates four onshore gas fields on the Kenai
Peninsula including the Kenai cannery loop, Beaver Creek and
Sterling gas fields. Marathon also operates 90 miles of gas
gathering line which transports the natural gas to market. He said
Marathon employs 35 people, with 11 employees working in the Kenai
Peninsula. He said this is a drastic change, since December of
1994, when there were 142 Marathon employees in Alaska. He said a
consolidation of operations granted UNOCAL the operation of two
offshore platforms and one onshore production facility while
Marathon retained ownership.
MR. KOVACEVICH said in 1995, Marathon's net gas production was a
131 million cubic feet of gas per day and 8,700 barrels per oil per
day as compared to the 1990 gas production rate of 132 million
cubic feet per day and 10,100 barrels of oil per day. He said the
majority of oil was sold to UNOCAL with a small amount of produced
onshore oil being sold to the Tesoro refinery. A portion of the
gas is sold to ENSTAR for distribution in the Anchorage and Kenai
markets and sold to Chugach Power. Thirty percent of the natural
gas is supplied to the Phillips plant for conversion to liquid
natural gas (LNG) which is exported to Japan.
MR. KOVACEVICH said the primary goal, for the future of the Kenai
Peninsula, is to explore and develop new supplies of natural gas
allowING Marathon to maintain and potentially add to the daily
sales volumes. He said as gas supplies become more difficult to
find, the existing infrastructure will allow his company to find
and produce more gas in an environmentally sound and economic
manner. He said, within the next week, an exploration well will be
drilled on a recently obtained acreage four miles south of Clam
Gulch. He said Marathon is continuing to evaluate other areas for
potential drilling.
DAVE PERKINS, Manager, Marathon Alaska said his company established
their first Alaskan office in 1959. He said numerous investments
have occurred over that time. He said Marathon co-exists with
other industries such as fishing and tourism and that he believed
Marathon was a good steward in environmental issues and in
industry. He said Marathon can provide natural gas for consumers
and continue oil production with UNOCAL. He said the older oil
wells Marathon owns need extra work to maintain profitability,
employment and make them environmentally sound.
MR. PERKINS said, in their exploration activities, Marathon decided
to keep the wells onshore and "kick them under the inlet" in
consideration of the fishing industry. He said the drilling
program does not interfere with the recreational activities of the
Kenai area.
MR. PERKINS said the issue, from a legislative standpoint, is land
acquisition in terms of accessing and utilizing these lands. He
said Marathon likes the concept of areawide leasing and areawide
best interest findings. He said Marathon is concerned about the
air quality, Title 5 Acts, adopted by the EPA and the stringent
regulations associated with them. He also mentioned the NPDES
permit system.
MR. PERKINS expressed concern regarding the business environment in
the state and said a tax appeals process should be resolved where
businesses can get a de novo type of review when there is a
conflict of interest between the taxpayer and the Department of
Revenue.
BETTY J. GLICK, President, Cook Inlet Regional Citizen Advisory
Council (CIRCAC), was next to testify. She said her organization
is a non-profit organization and was incorporated in 1990 to meet
the mandates of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). She said the
OPA describes the membership, the appointment, the process and the
structure of CIRCAC. She said the thirteen members are from
Anchorage, Kodiak, Homer, Seldovia and Kenai with representation of
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Kodiak Island Borough. She said
there is representation from native groups, commercial fishing
groups, aquaculture associations, tourism and recreation and from
environmental groups.
MS. GLICK said, when CIRCAC was first formed, it had a
representative from the environmental community. She said because
of circumstances and funding agreements, the environmental group
resigned and upon that resignation there was not an environmental
group participating in CIRCAC until 1994 when she became president.
She said this seat comes up for reauthorization this year and
CIRCAC has sent out solicitations to 25 different environmental
groups. She said two of those solicitations were returned as non-
deliverable, 23 others chose to not become certified. She said
only four environmental groups responded, and as a result, there
was somewhat of a conflict in filling that particular seat. She
said the person, who was appointed in 1994, will continue in that
capacity until CIRCAC goes through the election process one more
time to ensure that the seat is filled by a representative that the
environmental groups chooses.
MS. GLICK said CIRCAC has "ex-officio" members representing the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Department of
Natural Resource (DNR), Division of Emergency Services, Bureau of
Land Management, EPA, Minerals Management Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the United States Coast Guard and
the United States Forest Service. She said there is good
participation from those different agencies at the quarterly
meetings and that these members also serve on the committees. She
said all work is voluntary in manner.
MS. GLICK said OPA 1990 states that the oil industry utilizing the
inlet shall fund the CIRCAC up to $1 million. She added that there
is another regional resource citizens advisory council in Prince
William Sound with a similar structure, but different because they
contract specifically with Alyeska Pipeline Service Company for
their funding, between $2 million and $3 million. She said CIRCAC
deals with all of the oil industries and the charter companies that
fund CIRCAC include Cook Inlet Pipeline Company, Kenai Pipeline
Company, Phillips Petroleum, Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company,
UNOCAL, Marathon, Chevron, SHELL, Western E&P Incorporated, ARCO
Incorporated and the defense fuel supply. She said CIRCAC has
entered into a three year contract, the first year was for funding
of $637,000 and this year the funding will be at $616,000 due to
the reduction of MAPCO funds.
MS. GLICK said CIRCAC works through two committees which are
mandated through OPA 1990 and include the environmental monitoring
committee and the prevention, response, operation and safety
committee (PROPS). She said these committees utilize funding to
the best of their ability. She read the PROPS mission statement,
"the commitment to the prevention of oil spills in Cook Inlet. The
committee primary work has involved the development of work plans,
projects and studies designed to provide recommendations to
minimize the risk of oil spills. The secondary mission of the
committee is to review and monitor spill response efforts and the
best available technology." Some work topics have included the oil
spill contingency review which is an ongoing process within this
committee. She said PROPS also reviews the spill, drill exercises,
spill response efforts, evaluation of spill response equipment,
near shore response pilot development, dispersant and in-situ
burning. She said, last year PROPS in conjunction with the Alaska
Clean Seas, participated in an in-situ burning demonstration at
Prudhoe Bay.
MS. GLICK said the environmental monitoring committee is required
to develop a comprehensive monitoring program within the Cook
Inlet, but are limited by their funding. She said monitoring has
been conducted on a regular basis over the last three years, 1993,
1994 and 1995. She said the committee contracted with A. D. Little
for 1993 and 1994 and the 1995 report was done by Kinetic
Laboratories, Limited. She reiterated that these studies are not
as comprehensive as CIRCAC would have liked to do, but the same
sites were monitored to see if there was any change and different
sites were also selected. She said the studies are not conclusive,
but they contain sound science to refute or support other evidence,
providing a different view point. She said CIRCAC is trying to
come up with a data base of scientific monitoring of the Cook
Inlet.
TAPE 96-22, SIDE B
Number 000
MS. GLICK said CIRCAC has the reputation of "rubber stamping" the
oil industry. She said CIRCAC was created to foster a long term
partnership between industry, government and citizens following the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. She said it was also created to provide
citizen oversight of terminal and tanker operations.
TAPE 96-23, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. GLICK mentioned the 1995 CIRCAC annual report which includes
the letter to the EPA regarding the NPDES permit. She said the
NPDES permit was already addressed in the committee meeting, but
wanted to show the committee the research that CIRCAC had done.
She said two years of research has been done on this project,
including hearings on this issue. She said the results, concerning
the NPDES, are not sided towards or against the industry. She said
some results will favor the industry and others favor a more
stringent application of the NPDES permit, placing the conclusion
on the side of the environmental community. She said this was a
major CIRCAC project.
MS. GLICK said the report also contains the 1996 environmental
monitoring committee's work plan. She said the majority of funding
is going to a monitoring program dealing with sampling in the
Shelikof Strait, located in the Kodiak area. She said the
intertidal structure will also be monitored in the lower Cook
Inlet, a modified P-450 methods for sediments and tissues, and a
contract with the National Park Service to do a joint project
involving sampling on clam beds and other areas of the shore. She
referred to other issues including a public outreach project which
educates citizens through "AL," the display board and a brochure.
She said the brochure includes a survey to get public response.
She added that the Coast Guard, upon recertification, complemented
CIRCAC on their outreach program.
MS. GLICK said the report also contained a work plan for the 1996
PROPS committee which includes contingency plan drill reviews, sea
plan control group and near shore response. She said there has
been interest in having a near shore response facility in case
there is a potential oil spill. She said a pilot program has been
done, regarding this issue, in Seldovia. She said CIRCAC would
like to put near shore response facilities in other areas and they
wrote a letter to Commissioner Gene Burden asking for an
expenditure of the 470 Fund for this purpose and said developing
near shore facilities would fit well within its intent. She said
involvement by the legislature regarding this issue would be
helpful as it is an important project to CIRCAC.
MS. GLICK said, at their last meeting, CIRCAC developed a
resolution regarding tug boats. She said, in Cook Inlet, there has
been discussions as to whether there should be tug boats or tug
escorts. She said the resolution records CIRCAC's support of the
promulgation of a rule and or regulations requiring the placement
of a tug boat, capable of year round duty, in the vicinity of oil
terminals in Cook Inlet.
MS. GLICK said CIRCAC has the ability of entering into a "basic
ordering agreement" with the Coast Guard in regards to emergency
response. She said, in 1994 discussions with the industry, CIRCAC
mentioned the need for an emergency response plan which was reduced
because of funding. She said, in working with the Coast Guard,
CIRCAC's response capabilities would be enhanced.
AL HASTINGS, Director of Oil and Gas, Cook Inlet Region,
Incorporated, (CIRI) was next to testify. He said Cook Inlet
Region is one of twelve Native Regional Corporations established
under the Alaska Natives Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). He said
CIRI has about 6,700 shareholders, half of which live in the
greater Cook Inlet area. He said CIRI is the largest private
landholder in Cook Inlet with 924,000 acres of surface land and 1.6
million acres of subsurface land. He said CIRI is both a lessor
and a lessee on lands and they act in a similar manner to the state
when they are a lessor and act as an working interest owner when
they are the lessee. He said CIRI either has royalty or working
interest ownership in 13 active oil fields in Alaska.
MR. HASTINGS said CIRI has been active in the Kenai area for 20
years and have formed partnerships with BP, ARCO, Chevron, Exxon,
Marathon, Mobile, Phillips, Shell, Union Texas Petroleum and UNOCAL
over the years.
MR. HASTINGS said he would discuss the exploration aspect. He said
CIRI participated with ARCO in drilling an exploratory well in the
north end of Swanson River, the Buffalo Head well and that well is
temporarily abandoned. In 1994, an area of mutual interest
agreement was signed with Union Texas Petroleum (UTP) covering
close to 340,00 acres on the Kenai Peninsula. He said, at this
time, UTP has taken about 14,500 acres and have the option on
another 75,000 acres. Union Texas Petroleum has also been active
in the last three state lease sales to consolidate their land
position on their potential land prospects. He said they have
spent about $6 million gathering data, reprocessing data and
preparing to pursue exploration activities. He said if Sale 85-A
continues for December, UTP plans exploratory drilling in 1997
MR. HASTINGS said ARCO has 25,000 acres under lease from his
corporation in McCaulty near Tyonek. He said ARCO is evaluating
the oil and gas potential in that area. He said the state lease
sales are very important to CIRI and added that when the land
selection process took place, under statehood and ANCSA, the land
received was in a checkerboard pattern. He said geological
prospects overlap land ownerships, the CIRI lands and the state
lands. He said CIRI supports areawide leasing, as annual leasing
is the best way to tap available resources.
MR. HASTINGS expressed concern over the possible loss of
infrastructure in the Cook Inlet because CIRI would lose their
potential resources. He said this infrastructure includes the
mechanical structure, the labor force, service industry and all the
other people who provide skills to operations. He said CIRI is
hopeful and optimistic that the increased exploration activity by
ARCO, Marathon, Stewart, UNOCAL and UTP will lead to discoveries
which will provide jobs, revenues, taxes and continued oil industry
life in the Cook Inlet.
BILL STAMPS, Board Member, Alaska Support Industry Alliance,
Chapter Officer, Kenai Chapter, Alaska Support Industry Alliance,
was next to testify. He repeated his testimony saying in 1994, the
oil and gas industry accounted for $292.3 million in revenue for
the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The oil and gas extraction accounted
for estimated salaries of $64.6 million, the manufacturing section
accounted for $36.7 million and the service section accounted for
$191 million. He said the oil industry accounts for only 36
percent of the borough's work force, yet account for 41 percent of
the work force revenues. He said in 1994, the top nine out of ten
taxpayers in the borough were oil and gas companies, accounting for
approximately 33 percent of the borough's assessed value and said
the revenue derived from property tax was $8.7 million.
MR. STAMPS said, over the past nine years, from 1986 to 1994 the
fish processing industry averaged 1,010 people and the oil and gas
section accounted for 995 people with a 61 percent payroll
difference between them. He said in 1988 there were 77 businesses
registered and that in 1996 there are 53 businesses which was a
decrease of 31 percent. He said the employment figures for 1995
are predicted to resemble this same downward trend. He requested
that the legislature help the oil industry in any way possible.
DREW SCALZI, President, Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly, was next
to testify. He said oil companies and oil properties add a
tremendous amount of revenue to the borough and reiterated Mr.
Stamps view of their importance. He said, through the economic
development district, the assembly tries to enhance every portion
of their economy. He said the Kenai Peninsula Borough is only
second in the state with accessed value per capita, somewhere
around $72,000 per capita. The first area being the North Slope
and the third area being Ketchikan.
MR. SCALZI said the borough supports a tourist industry, it
supports a commercial fishing industry with value "addedness" and
supports the oil industry through the economic development
district. He said the assembly encourages incentives for old and
marginal fields. He said SB 308 and lease Sale 78, which came up
in the last few years, brought a lot of adverse attention to the
borough. He said, upon research of the findings, there were good
reasons to object to some of the things in SB 308 and added that,
from the fishing perspective, there were good reason to object to
some of the things in lease Sale 78. He said the fishing industry
did not take an opposition to the oil industry, but to the location
of some of the tracts. He said negotiations, regarding this issue,
are continuing today.
MR. SCALZI said the borough supports the oil industry. He said the
assembly is following the legislative events and encourages all the
support the legislature can provide.
JOHN WILLIAMS, Mayor, City of Kenai, was next to testify. He said
the tax base derived from the oil industry was more than 50 percent
nine years ago, and today it represents less than 35 percent. He
said the peninsula has grown to around 50,000 people and has 38
schools to support. He said the oil industry is the cornerstone to
the peninsula's economy.
MR. WILLIAMS said the NPDES permit affects the city of Kenai as
well as the oil industry. He said when the city makes
modifications to their sewage and water treatment, there is always
the possibility that it will have to be redone or modified whenever
the final issue of the NPDES permit gets resolved. He said the
Kenai Peninsula Borough would like some of their waste liquids
processed through their plant, but the issue has been unresolved
because of the lack of closure regarding the NPDES permit
requirements. He said the borough supported HJR 59.
HB 175 - SPORT FISH GUIDE LICENSING
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the next item on the agenda was HB
175, an act relating to sport fish guides; and providing for an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN sponsor of HB 175, said the bill was
introduced last year and said information was located in the
committee packet. He said several hearings were held and five or
six redrafts of HB 175 have occurred during the last year. He said
the original intent of HB 175 was that it would gather information
on the sport fish commercial operations in order to determine the
use of natural resources. He said to get this information, HB 175
includes a license provision for the guides to provide tracking
back-up.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN read his sponsor statement into the
record, "The guided `sportfishery' is an important and rapidly
growing industry in the Alaskan economy. The ability of the state
to provide for the sustainable development and sound, sensible
management our fishery resource is dependent upon the availability
of complete information upon which to base decisions. My goal of
HB 175 is to provide for the collection of this data.
There is a lack of hard data available regarding the commercial
guided `sportfisheries' in Alaska. In some parts of the state, A,
D, E, F and G, regulation requires vessels engaged in `sportfish'
guiding to be registered. Registration of the guides themselves is
required on a few of the rivers, but not everywhere. No uniform
licensing procedure exists in Alaska. Thus, we do not have the
complete information about who is actively engaged in `sportfish'
guiding, how many clients are served, and what the catch rates are,
and what rivers, streams, and marine waters are being utilized.
Without a means of gathering dependable information, it is
impossible to monitor the activity or growth of the commercial
sport fisheries on a statewide basis. It is imperative for the
state to have solid information to ensure the sustainable
development of this commercial industry and to ensure the sound
management of the fishery resources upon which this commercial
industry depends. It is time to acknowledge this important growing
industry and make sure that management decisions can be based on
complete information.
The bill establishes three options of guide licensure: First, a
sport fishing service operator license which costs $75 is for sport
fish guide business owners and is obtainable from the Department of
Fish and Game (DFG). An Alaskan business license and proof of
insurance are the only requirements for this license. Second, a
fishing guide license cost $25 for sport fish guides and will be
readily available through the ADFG's vender licensing program.
This is modeled after how commercial crew licenses are obtained.
Requirements for the guide license include U.S. citizenship, a
First Aid/CPR card, U.S. Coast Guard license and a current sport
fish license. third, we have also provided a third alternative, in
response to earlier versions of HB 175, in which an individual
could obtain both a guide and operator license as one combined
license for $75 from the department to accommodate the smaller one
person operations."
"Each person who plans to engage in sportfish guiding, both on
fresh and salt water, from a vessel or otherwise, will be required
to purchase the license. The sportfish division of ADFG will
develop reports which license holders will be required to submit.
This will enable the state to build a data bank regarding the
guided sportfishery.
The cost of guide licensing, data gathering and analysis will be
funded by the revenues generated from the license fees. Therefore,
this program should be self-sustaining.
This is a data gathering bill only. It does not impose any
limitations on the number of guides or vessels in the state, or who
can purchase the license to guide, nor does it affect their
activities other than having to report and carry the documentation
on their vessels."
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked the sponsor of HB 175 to comment on
some of the changes included in CSHB 175(FSH).
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, in response to concerns from
interior Alaska, the word "subsistence" was removed from HB 175.
He said there was also confusion in HB 175 regarding the
differences between fisheries in interior Alaska compared to
fisheries in the coastal areas and it was determined that the
differences in interior Alaska did not require the same reporting
systems. In the work draft of HB 175, the reporting provision
specifically relates to salmon and halibut, with the exception of
pink salmon. He said, because pink salmon was such a voluminous
fish, it was exempted.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said a transporter license was taken out
of HB 175 due to the complexity that arose from this provision.
Another change was that in the original bill, the license would be
lost for a year if accurate reporting was not completed and in the
current version of HB 175, merely fines the operator.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to adopt CSHB 175(FSH), version
9-LS0664\R. Hearing no objection CSHB 175(FSH) was before the
committee.
DENNIS RANDA, Member, Alaska Council of Trout Unlimited, and owner
Randa's Guide Service, testified on CSHB 175(FSH). He said he was
involved in the sport guide fishing industry since 1984. He said
the state needs to adopt CSHB 175(FSH) before it enacts a bill
limiting the number of guides.
MR. RANDA said the prices of guide license varies in other states
and said there should be a constant fee of $75. He said, on page
two, line 31, any time there is a gasoline on board a Coast Guard
license is required, so there are times when you can guide without
a Coast Guard's license.
MR. RANDA, on page six, line 4, suggested turning the word, "shall"
to "may" because of the paperwork burden. He wanted to ensure that
the paperwork he completed would be necessary and useful to DFG.
He said he welcomed CSHB 175(FSH).
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the U.S. Coast Guard was consulted on
numerous occasions and the information received regarding the Coast
Guard license was that it referred to power, whether you utilize
wind, gasoline or something else. He said if you utilize power you
need a 6 pack, or Coast Guard, license. He said a raft going down
river would not require this license.
MR. RANDA said he thought the Coast Guard license was by craft.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said that provision would be looked at
again.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the state's involvement regarding
an issue that the federal government should be overseeing, the
Coast Guard rules and regulations regarding water craft.
GARY E. HULL, Guide, testified that there should be a limited
number of guides for each watershed and a code of ethics written
for fish guides. He said the air charter service should have to
comply with CSHB 175(FSH). He said if there was a limited entry
permit for guides it should be transferable.
JIM RUSK, Guide, Jim Rusk Fishing, said there should be more
regulation relating the fishing guide industry. He felt that CSHB
175(FSH) should make it more difficult on out of state guides and
fishermen.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked for a specific suggestion regarding his
concern.
MR. RUSK said that an in-person registration for guides should be
imposed by February 1, of the year that they guide.
JOE HARDY, Guide, said fish guiding should be put on a professional
level to insure a level of expertise to control the growth of the
business. He said CSHB 175(FSH) is a step in the right direction,
but that DFG does not have the resources or the interest in
policing a new guide industry. He said CSHB 175(FSH) is weak in
many areas and that it has too many levels of service provider. He
suggested that CSHB 175(FSH) should only list a guide or a booking
agent to simplify the regulations. He said air charters should not
be exempt from reporting as they are significant users of the
resource.
MR. HARDY said the fish guide requirements are not stringent enough
and they do nothing to create a professional level within the
industry. He said CSHB 175(FSH) should include that a guide
demonstrate three years of Alaskan fishing experience, knowledge of
regulations, knowledge of the legal methods and means, the ability
to pass a minimum fish identification test and that it should ban
people with a long history of fish violations. He said there
should be special qualifications for non-motorized vessel
operations as there are safety issues in rafting trips.
MR. HARDY referred to page five, and said the misdemeanor charge
for not having your guide license upon your second offense is a
heavy charge considering the logistics of the sport fishing
industry such as using several boats and the damp conditions.
Representative Davies joined the committee meeting via
teleconference.
STEVE TUENSTRUP, Commercial Fisherman, said he supported CSHB
175(FSH), but that the license fees should be the same for in state
and out of state residents. He said $500 is a small amount for a
large offense and that there should be a cut off date for being
able to guide in order to reduce the number of fishing guides, such
as 1992 or 1993.
TERRY BRASEL made a comment that three years Alaska fishing
experience was a good requirement regarding the level of experience
and said CSHB 175(FSH) should favor residents of Alaska.
TAPE 96-24, SIDE A
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said "supportive of us passing an i.q.
provision that was retroactive to the state in 1990, if you weren't
a guide before 1990, you're out."
MR. BRASEL asked about the fairness issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said Mr. Brasel's testimony limited sport guide
fishing to resident guide fishing.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked Mr. Brasel to clarify his comments.
MR. BRASEL said other than certain requirements, all you need to do
currently is pay and get a license and felt that a fishing skill
level should be included.
PAUL DALE, Salmon Producers Alliance, said the alliance is an
umbrella organization of commercial fish interests in Cook Inlet
and includes most of the major processors and harvesters. He said
the alliance includes the United Cook Inlet Drift Association and
the Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association.
MR. DALE referred to past discussions regarding these subjects and
said it was felt that strict or onerous regulations of the sport
fishery would limit the growth of the guide industry. He said
there should be limitations of out of state residents as guides and
anglers.
MR. DALE said the alliance recently undertook an expensive and
sophisticated research survey of Alaskan's attitudes in
Southcentral regarding fishing issues. He said the strongest
response in the survey was that if a river is too crowded, paid
guides should be limited.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for the precise wording of the
survey question.
MR. DALE said he could supply this survey questionnaire for the
committee.
TYLAND VANLIER, guide, said a guide can go through a non-
corporation and achieve a Coast Guard license for the Kenai. He
said the Coast Guard license needs to be harder to get.
DUE TO A TAPE MALFUNCTION, PART OF THE RECORDING WAS LOST, THE TAPE
RESUMES AT THIS POINT.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, at the time he became involved with this
issue, there was a maximum number between resident and non-resident
guides. He said the resident guide license number was quite high
and to increase that causes legal issues regarding the balance of
trade.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER said the number of non-resident guides
was between 15 and 20 last year.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said this is an issue of a finite resource
and asked how we could limit one resource, that of sport fishing
guides, without addressing the processors and fishermen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER said it is an issue of regulating an
issue occurring on state land. He said the workers fishing out in
the ocean is unapplicable to this situation. He said regulating
can be done through the fees that are charged not through
restricting them from providing their service. He referred to
testimony linking residency with those eligible for the permanent
fund dividend.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the state has very stringent
requirements regarding the permanent fund dividend due to a court
suit. She said the Supreme Court's ruling was that any residency
program must have a clear and defendable length of residency.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said the issue of linking residency with the
permanent fund dividend is because of the strict rules it contains.
JEFF KING said he was on the task force that helped develop HB 175.
He said one of the areas of importance to the task force was the
issue of compliance, because of the diversity in the state. Due to
this factor, it was felt that fees and professional standards
should be kept to a minimal level in order to achieve this
compliance. He said CSHB 175(FSH) is palatable and still affect
everyone in the state. He suggested the reporting to DFG
provisions should be left to the guide's discretion.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN thanked Mr. King and the task force that
worked on this issue. He said CSHB 175(FSH) has had a lot of
changes made and represents a compromise position. He said the
concept behind CSHB 175(FSH) is good and will allow the DFG to
gather information, changing the non-compulsory regulation system
currently in place. He said CSHB 175(FSH) will put sport fish
guiding into the statute and 10 to 15 years down the road the state
will know what is happening in the industry to avoid the problems
occurring down south.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Standing
Committee on Resources, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at
1:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|